PDA

View Full Version : Fishbone skin question



DrNic
2005-12-04, 14:51
Hi
I guess this is really aimed at the author (KDF)!!
I love this skin and have used it exclusively in my SB1 setup (believe it or not the 5.3.1 server!).
I have the SB3 on order, and have downloaded the latest 6.2.2 (4/12/05)- a breeze to install (ie none of the stated problems others have been unfortunate to experience) and the new functionality is great. I haven't yet put it "live" so the SB1 is still using the server off another machine running the old 5.3.1.
The latest fishbone skin seems to have the icons (add, play now, play next etc) closer together than on the old server skin, and they appear to be lower resolution. This is on the latest version of Mozilla Firefox. I can obviously compare these direct as I can navigate to the running 5.3.1 and the new "local" 6.2.2. Interestingly the Internet explorer version looks better but they are still closer together.
Is there a reason or solution to this? How can I take screen shots to show you? (short of using a digital cam!).
Thanks for any advice.

Nic

PS the memory footprint of 6.2.2 is significantly larger (64Mb for 340 songs) compared to 5.3.1 (48Mb for 1800 songs).
Is there a reason?

kdf
2005-12-04, 15:35
The images are the same ones as before, so the resolution should be
just as it was before. The only difference is in the play icon which
was improperly scaled up from 8 to 9 pixels in some older versions.
The spacing has changed due to the increasing information that has been
added to the title formatting over time. i have also moved this from
cell size control to css-based control, which may be more accurate and
thus showing the size as smaller than it used to be.

-kdf

DrNic
2005-12-04, 15:55
The images are the same ones as before, so the resolution should be
just as it was before. The only difference is in the play icon which
was improperly scaled up from 8 to 9 pixels in some older versions.
The spacing has changed due to the increasing information that has been
added to the title formatting over time. i have also moved this from
cell size control to css-based control, which may be more accurate and
thus showing the size as smaller than it used to be.

-kdf

Thanks KDF for the fast reply. So there is no way to get back to the "old" look then, I take it?
Do you see a difference between browsers?
I will try and post a screen shot when able - just to illustrate what I mean, regardless of whether there is a fix or not!!

With more playing with 6.2.2, I have noticed that albums that were created with iTunes (before my FLAC onslaught which is still ongoing!) and were compilations (and hence have iTunes compilation tag set) do not show up in track order. These are taged as 2-1, 2-2 2-3 etc for disc 2 (and 1-1, 1-2 etc for disc 1). It is only disc 2 that has the number order wrong. Any thoughts?
(Behaviour is correct in 5.3.1)

Nic

kdf
2005-12-04, 16:17
On 4-Dec-05, at 2:55 PM, DrNic wrote:

>
> Thanks KDF for the fast reply. So there is no way to get back to the
> "old" look then, I take it?

open HTML/Fishbone/slimserver.css

look for ".listing, .listing2, .even, .odd"
change to whatever you prefer:
padding-left: 1px;

> Do you see a difference between browsers?

and platforms, yes. Safari appears to swell the graphics a bit. Opera
on windows is fine, but on osx the graphics swell to overlapping, even
with lots of added margins.

> I will try and post a screen shot when able - just to illustrate what I
> mean, regardless of whether there is a fix or not!!
>
I use analogx capture for screenshots in windows.


> With more playing with 6.2.2, I have noticed that albums that were
> created with iTunes (before my FLAC onslaught which is still ongoing!)
> and were compilations (and hence have iTunes compilation tag set) do
> not show up in track order. These are taged as 2-1, 2-2 2-3 etc for
> disc 2 (and 1-1, 1-2 etc for disc 1). It is only disc 2 that has the
> number order wrong. Any thoughts?

This should already be fixed, in that the sort will use the multi-album
sort key. You'd have to check the db to confirm.
There are a number of settings changes since 5.3.1 to handle
compilations and multi-albums. You might need to play with those a
bit. As a rule now, you should only have to tag then with a plain
tracknum, and disc (part in set for itunes). The server does the rest.
I'm not sure exactly what it does with tracknums of 1-1, 102, etc. I
no longer have the kind of free time needed to keep track of all the
changing back and forth.

> (Behaviour is correct in 5.3.1)
>
5.3.1 is almost completely unrelated to 6.2.2

-kdf

LavaJoe
2005-12-04, 16:40
To change the subject slightly...

After a recent nightly revision, search now shows the number of results, but the results themselves are not shown. This is under Firefox (Mozilla). I have not tried IE. I am running the 6.5b1 nightlies.

kdf
2005-12-04, 23:08
This should be fixed in the most recent nightly. it was a reported bug.

On 4-Dec-05, at 3:40 PM, LavaJoe wrote:

>
> To change the subject slightly...
>
> After a recent nightly revision, search now shows the number of
> results, but the results themselves are not shown. This is under
> Firefox (Mozilla). I have not tried IE. I am running the 6.5b1
> nightlies.
>
>
> --
> LavaJoe
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> LavaJoe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2331
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18796
>
>

LavaJoe
2005-12-05, 00:05
Great to hear. It's a great skin!


This should be fixed in the most recent nightly. it was a reported bug.

On 4-Dec-05, at 3:40 PM, LavaJoe wrote:

>
> To change the subject slightly...
>
> After a recent nightly revision, search now shows the number of
> results, but the results themselves are not shown. This is under
> Firefox (Mozilla). I have not tried IE. I am running the 6.5b1
> nightlies.
>
>
> --
> LavaJoe
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> LavaJoe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2331
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18796
>
>

DrNic
2005-12-05, 04:45
> With more playing with 6.2.2, I have noticed that albums that were
> created with iTunes (before my FLAC onslaught which is still ongoing!)
> and were compilations (and hence have iTunes compilation tag set) do
> not show up in track order. These are taged as 2-1, 2-2 2-3 etc for
> disc 2 (and 1-1, 1-2 etc for disc 1). It is only disc 2 that has the
> number order wrong. Any thoughts?[/color]

This should already be fixed, in that the sort will use the multi-album
sort key. You'd have to check the db to confirm.
There are a number of settings changes since 5.3.1 to handle
compilations and multi-albums. You might need to play with those a
bit. As a rule now, you should only have to tag then with a plain
tracknum, and disc (part in set for itunes). The server does the rest.
I'm not sure exactly what it does with tracknums of 1-1, 102, etc. I
no longer have the kind of free time needed to keep track of all the
changing back and forth.-kdf

Thanks KDF.
I have noticed that regardless of multi-disc setting, or compilation setting, these files are being sorted according to artist alphabetically (they are compilation discs so have many different artists - reminder!). I have changed the track numbers to simple 1, 2, 3 etc and this hasn't made a difference.
You say I can check the database, can you please humour me and tell me how I do that?! Where is the file I need to check and can I open it with Access or something?

Thanks for your help.

Nic

kdf
2005-12-05, 10:01
On 5-Dec-05, at 3:45 AM, DrNic wrote:

>
>
> Thanks KDF.
> I have noticed that regardless of multi-disc setting, or compilation
> setting, these files are being sorted according to artist
> alphabetically (they are compilation discs so have many different
> artists - reminder!). I have changed the track numbers to simple 1, 2,
> 3 etc and this hasn't made a difference.
> You say I can check the database, can you please humour me and tell me
> how I do that?! Where is the file I need to check and can I open it
> with Access or something?
>

http://sqlitebrowser.sourceforge.net/

It's a free app to view sqlite databases (which slimserver uses by
default)
The file name is slimserversql.db and I'm not sure where it is created
when using the windows installer. A search should have no trouble
finding it.

You can check the song info pages as well to see what the server has
for disk number. My multi-disk sets list fine, but they are all single
artist.

-kdf

danco
2005-12-05, 12:16
On 5/12/05 at 09:01 -0800, kdf wrote
>On 5-Dec-05, at 3:45 AM, DrNic wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Thanks KDF.
>>I have noticed that regardless of multi-disc setting, or compilation
>>setting, these files are being sorted according to artist
>>alphabetically (they are compilation discs so have many different
>>artists - reminder!). I have changed the track numbers to simple 1, 2,
>>3 etc and this hasn't made a difference.
>>You say I can check the database, can you please humour me and tell me
>>how I do that?! Where is the file I need to check and can I open it
>>with Access or something?
>>
>
>http://sqlitebrowser.sourceforge.net/
>
>It's a free app to view sqlite databases (which slimserver uses by default)
>The file name is slimserversql.db and I'm not sure where it is
>created when using the windows installer. A search should have no
>trouble finding it.

For those who need it, on the Mac, the file is in ~/Library/Caches/SlimServer

I couldn't make sense of what was shown, but then I hadn't even
glanced at any documentation.

--
Daniel Cohen

kdf
2005-12-05, 14:42
Quoting Daniel Cohen <danco (AT) f2s (DOT) com>:

> For those who need it, on the Mac, the file is in ~/Library/Caches/SlimServer
>
> I couldn't make sense of what was shown, but then I hadn't even
> glanced at any documentation.

once you have opened the db, click on the "browse data" tab at the top.
Then select "tracks" from the pulldown list for Table.
At the far right, last column, you will find "multialbumsortkey". This
is the info that is used for sorting when you are browsing with the
group albums pref to keep multi-albums together as one. Otherwise,
sorting is strictly by track number. Using Browse Music Folder, all
sorting is alphabetical.

-kdf

DrNic
2005-12-06, 18:45
Thank you KDF!
Will try that one when I have some time again!

Nic

kdf
2005-12-07, 12:18
Quoting DrNic <DrNic.1znctb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> Thank you KDF!
> Will try that one when I have some time again!
>
cool. If you get around to screenshots at any point, please post
those. I don't really see the issues you have described, but I also
might be working at higher resolution. Although, I'm not sure offhand
what I can do with those icons. They are made up of so few pixels
already.

-kdf

DrNic
2005-12-08, 13:45
cool. If you get around to screenshots at any point, please post
those. I don't really see the issues you have described, but I also
might be working at higher resolution. Although, I'm not sure offhand
what I can do with those icons. They are made up of so few pixels
already.

-kdf

KDF,
this is going to seem like I've been making this up (or am just plain crazy) but I downloaded the screen grab software you suggested and went to see the differences in your web skin between 5.3.1 and 6.2.2 and (ah hem) they were both the same again!!
I don't think I was on any psychotropic drugs at the time I noticed this, but it certainly isn't there now! Don't know what "cured" the problem...
I do see the slight difference in spacing that you talk about in an earlier post - but this is not dramatic.

Still trying to sort out my bizzare track name thing though. (haven't got round to looking in the db yet!)

Thanks

Nic

kdf
2005-12-08, 14:36
Quoting DrNic <DrNic.1zqo9b (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> KDF,
> this is going to seem like I've been making this up (or am just plain
> crazy) but I downloaded the screen grab software you suggested and went
> to see the differences in your web skin between 5.3.1 and 6.2.2 and (ah
> hem) they were both the same again!!

cool! If you do find out it was the drugs, tho, please share. I could
use a few. :)

> I don't think I was on any psychotropic drugs at the time I noticed
> this, but it certainly isn't there now! Don't know what "cured" the
> problem...
> I do see the slight difference in spacing that you talk about in an
> earlier post - but this is not dramatic.

well, there was a big shift in the way the sizing is now done. I could
come to believe that it was some old cached sizing mixing with the new
that gave bizarre results. If the images were enlarged somehow, then
the gap would seem scrunched. Previous spacing was either 2 or 3
pixels (I haven't looked it up) and now it is one (between cells). Old
style was as consistent, and now that it is cleaned up, I don't think
that going back to a spacing of 2 would be so bad.

>
> Still trying to sort out my bizzare track name thing though. (haven't
> got round to looking in the db yet!)

You always have the option of filling out a bug report and attaching
your db to it. There are always other people who can look it over and
fix it. I'm certainly not trying to discourage that. I do, however,
find it quicker and more rewarding to find things myself. Or at least
to understand the source of the problem, if I can't actually fix it.
It is your choice whether a lok into that side of slimserver is worth
it to you. The important thing is to not lose the details of the
problem so that, one way or another, it can be fixed.

-kdf