mirror of
https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist-plex.git
synced 2026-03-23 20:37:11 +00:00
[GH-ISSUE #31] [Bug]: A 404 response from TA should not stop video scanning #10
Labels
No labels
bug
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
pull-request
question
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
tubearchivist/archived-tubearchivist-plex#10
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @zac-schutt on GitHub (Dec 10, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist-plex/issues/31
I've read the documentation.
Operating System
Linux
Your Bug Report
Describe the bug
Somewhere along the line, metadata for some videos have been removed from my instance of TA, but the files still remain on disk. When scanning in plex, the process stops when it recieves a 404 from tubearchivist. This presents itself as some videos missing from the Plex library, even though they exist in TA. Rescanning the filesystem in TA resolves this by re-importing the metadata, but requires manual removal of video files that have been removed from YouTube.
I believe the exception handling that needs cleaning up is here, but I'm not a python expert.
github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist-plex@c14fb74475/Contents/Code/init.py#L172C1-L172C25Steps To Reproduce
Add a file in the expected format to the TubeArchivist filesystem, rescan library. The rescan stops processing a channel when it reaches a video without metadata.
Expected behavior
Skip processing the file, and continue with others in the same folder.
Relevant log output
Anything else?
No response
@lamusmaser commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023):
This can be reviewed closer when I have available resources to look into it. I see what you are saying and I'll determine what actions are required at that review.
@lamusmaser commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2024):
I believe this has now been fixed with v0.1.4's release.
@lamusmaser commented on GitHub (May 9, 2024):
No additional responses since v0.1.4's release. Planning on development for v0.1.5, so closing this issue as expected to be remediated.
@akoebbe commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2024):
FWIW I was having the same issue with the latest version. I put in a PR with a fix. #83