I'm experimenting with a 3-level data driven category (Websites), with the
Other option active for all three of its levels:
- Level 1: Based on Tag: XMP::xmpRights\WebStatement\WebStatement\0
Value Splitting and Hierarchy are both off.
- Level 2: Based on Tag: XMP::iptcExt\PersonInImage\PersonInImage\0
Value Splitting and Hierarchy are both off.
- Level 3: Based on Variable: {File.AT.File Info.Caption}
| Value Splitting: | ~; |
| Hierarchy: | > |
Problem:
Level 2, based on the person's name has a said value for one of its entries. And, that same value in the caption is also shared with files that don't as well share the same person. As the caption is composed with ">" to facilitate and promote hierarchy, there are problems when the options for value splitting and hierarchy are active for the caption (level 3): There are just 10 files with the person's name, Amber, but other files (for a total of 34) are now being put beneath Amber because they share the same caption. The problem goes away when the option for hierarchy is deactivated. So, is this by design or is it a bug?
Sounds like behavior as designed.
This is how data-driven categories and the catch all Other work.
How can it be proper functioning when the Person In Image tag has only 10 images corresponding to Amber, but 24 additional files (for a total of 34) are now being deposited right underneath Amber, and not underneath the Other category?
P.S.
To be sure, I have deactivated the Other category for all three levels, and the same behavior persists.
Open a bug report so I can schedule time for analysis.
Provide a complete list of the values in your database and the precise data-driven category settings.
Everything I need to reproduce what you are doing.
There are no open bugs for data-driven categories and extreme 3-level data-driven categories with variables and forced hierarchy separation is probably something only a very small number of users will ever do.
I shall look into this over the next weeks or so when you provide full data and I can reproduce it here in the lab.
I have just gone ahead and filed this bug report for this topic. (https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,13012.0.html)
So, is this a bug or is this by design. I totally realize that 100% priority is now on IMatch 2023. I just wanted to see if this will be corrected in the next major release. Thanks.
I have not yet looked into this. Else I would have commented on your bug report.
This is a very isolated problem that maybe only affects one user and only with a very specific set of settings and data.