Copy dialog additional options

Advertisement

Marek Mnd
Guest

Copy dialog additional options

https://winscp.net/eng/docs/ui_copy
Additional Options
The New and updated file(s) only checkbox makes WinSCP ignore files in source directory for which there exist file in the target directory with the same filename and the same or newer timestamp. The option is available for SFTP protocol only.

Assume i transferred files from remote to local with option "preserve timestamp" set.
Assume i was forced to reset my comp or connection in the middle of that process.
So when i start comp again, i dont want to manually check which files, directories were transferred partly and which not at all. So it is reasonable for me as an user to assume, that i can give copy command to the remote "topmost level" directory i want to transfer and the program would resolve the differences for me (when needed w prompt dialogs).

Either the problem is in your help file(which is confusing) or in the missing feature of your program (which is essential functionality for coping large data with unreiliable internet connection ).

What does the "new and updated files" mean?
You dont say about the file size anything.
If it only means what it says, you definately need to enhance the functionality of program with the extra option about file sizes.
I mean if i before computer crash transferrerd some of my files partly from remote to local, they should have now in my case the timestamp of that of remote files.
So they are equal.
And by the definition of your help file shouldnt be touched/completed although only the file exists on local disk partly compared to remote file.
Thus timestamps equal but file content is not.
Which is bad.

This should be cleared up in help file.
TIA

Reply with quote

Advertisement

martin
Site Admin
martin avatar
Joined:
Posts:
34,943
Location:
Prague, Czechia

Re: Copy dialog additional options

If the transfer of the file being transfered in the time of connection lost was resumable, WinSCP will offer you to resume the transfer despite "New and updated file(s) only" setting. If not, the local incomplete file will have current time set as timestamp, so it will always be newer. This is problem for you, but do not see an automatable solution. Of course you can use synchronisation instead of simple download.

Either the problem is in your help file(which is confusing)
Make it clear. That why it is wiki-based.

Reply with quote

Marek Mnd
Guest

Re: Copy dialog additional options

martin wrote:

If the transfer of the file being transfered in the time of connection lost was resumable, WinSCP will offer you to resume the transfer despite "New and updated file(s) only" setting. If not, the local incomplete file will have current time set as timestamp, so it will always be newer. This is problem for you, but do not see an automatable solution. Of course you can use synchronisation instead of simple download.

Thanks for quick attention!

I as a user have no idea whats your program keeps in particular for resumable and what not.
I tried synchronizing now on top of copying.
I have no idea whether it succeeded.
Aparently it did not.
Please take a peek on screenshot (65.92 kB).

<invalid hyperlink removed by admin>

The copy total size locally and remotely are not equal, there is a 242 bytes missing from local copy. Where is it - I DONT KNOW. And WinsCP wont help me finding it too with ease, cant go manually through 158 directories (as the Compare Directories feature isnt very mature in functionality)



AS RFE I would like too see, that WinSCP would show the same information shown in traditional Windows Explorer "File Properties" dialog by multiple file selection, it is:
file count and directory count.
Your program says 23 folders.
Windows Explorer says 158 folders.
Besides Windows Explorer says 977 files.
Your program doesnt reveal that number (why? Something arising from SFTP protocol? Although I am totally unaware of SFTP i think it cant be the case).


And the very thing that bothers me by WinSCP is the directory dates. Please look at the screenshot
<invalid hyperlink removed by admin>

I WANT ON MY LOCAL DISK TO HAVE THE RIGHT DATES FOR DIRECTORIES, NOT THE DATE THE COPYING PROCESS TOOK PLACE.

Why?
Becasue I and many have habit to sort the contents by Date. Sort by Date because so you get easier access to your recent projects, files... compared going through looking directories/files by names. Why cant the WinSCP set the directory dates "correctly"? The projects(directories) done, the times they have done and worked on, they reflect the periods of my life and i would like to line up them in my file manager chronologically. However your WinSCP program breaks it.
What major obstacles there are, that the WinScp program cant keep "corerct dates" on directories?

Reply with quote

Advertisement

martin
Site Admin
martin avatar
Joined:
Posts:
34,943
Location:
Prague, Czechia

Re: Copy dialog additional options

I was thinking about it and I do not know if it is good idea to update the timestamps of directories. Technically you do not transfer the directory, because copying directory (and "catalog" object/file) makes sense only locally. You create new directory and copy only the files within directory. And you may not copy all. Does it make sense to make the timestamp of directories the same if the content is not the same?

Also just now I have tried how different file managers (Windows Explorer, Total Commander, Servant Salamander, FAR) handle this and I have not found any that would update the timestamp of copied directory.

What do you think about that?

Reply with quote

Ripley
Guest

Directory Timestamps

I'm currently running against the same wall Marek did trying to
archive stuff from my notebook. (@Marek: Thanks for the hint
about TotalCommander, I'm going to get it right after posting.)

This stupidity is driving me crazy for some time now as I found
that zipping and extracting on another machine dropped the dates
from the directories as well. Unix does not do this.

I tried some other methods as well, like dos box and xcopy.
Xcopy is especially weird: On the initial copy the timestamps
are lost, but another copying over the target changes the dates
to the original values. But I cannot tell how reliable this
behaviour is on the complete tree so I can't use this. Besides
copying all data twice just for some timestamps is ugly and takes
too much time.


So I second Marek's plea for this feature. The configuration
checkbox is certainly easily done (just a field "directories too"
below the existing preserve timestamp setting).
I think the implementation might not be that simple, though.
You'll have to delay setting the timestamp until after all
other operations in that directory have been performed...

Reply with quote

Advertisement

You can post new topics in this forum