When sorting by track number, sometimes track 1 is incorrectly sorted at the bottom

[Alex Cabal]

Binary package hint: banshee

This happens with some of my albums, not all of them. On some albums, when I sort by track number ascending, track 1 appears at the bottom. This happens even if there are more than 10 tracks (i.e. track 1 is sorted below track 10). There is nothing special about the ID3 tags in the affected files that I can tell. Please let me know if there's any other info I can provide to help figure this out.

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

A screenshot demonstrating the problem

[Pedro Villavicencio (pedro)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better.You reported this bug a while ago and there hasn't been any activity in it recently. We were wondering is this still an issue for you? Do you get the same with Lucid or Maverick? Thanks in advance.

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

This is still a problem. It no longer happens with just track 1; sometimes when sorting in ascending order tracks 1 through 3 or 4 will be incorrectly sorted at the end.

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

To clarify, it sometimes looks like this when sorting by track ascending:
[top of screen] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3 [bottom]
See the attachment to the original report for a screenshot of the problem (but just for track 1).

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

Here's a screenshot showing the bug happening for tracks 1-7

[Noel Bush (noelbush)]

Here's another screenshot showing track 11 sorted as coming *before* track 1.

[Noel Bush (noelbush)]

The problem seems, in my case at least, to be some files that are just "stuck" in the wrong place. For instance, in this screenshot, you see the same set of tracks, but I have changed the "rogue" track 11 to a track number of 67. Still it stays in place.

[Noel Bush (noelbush)]

On the other hand, I can change any other track from this set -- say change track 1's number to 11 -- and it immediately gets sorted into the right place.

(Sorry for multiple comments, but I can only attach one screenshot per comment.)

[Noel Bush (noelbush)]

One more note on this: I tried removing the "stuck" track from my library, and re-importing it (just the one track). It immediately popped back into the wrong place and refused to sort correctly, same as above.

I am using Banshee 1.6.1 from the Banshee Team PPA.

[Noel Bush (noelbush)]

No, sorry, I see that I have 1.6.1-1~lucid1 from lucid-updates/universe (since it is marked as newer than the one in the PPA).

Sorry for the comment spam.

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

On Thursday 09,September,2010 01:50 PM, Noel Bush wrote:
> No, sorry, I see that I have 1.6.1-1~lucid1 from lucid-updates/universe
> (since it is marked as newer than the one in the PPA).
>
> Sorry for the comment spam.
>
When you click sort by track number, Banshee sorts by track number *in addition
to* the album. As a result, you won't see all the 1's grouped together, the 2's
grouped together, and so on, but see all the tracks in order for each album, one
album after another. Could you confirm whether the album is the same?

--
Kind regards,
Chow Loong Jin

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

See the screenshots in my comments #1 and #5. I only have one album selected in both screenshots and the tracks are not sorted correctly.

[Noel Bush (noelbush)]

Yes, in all these cases I am looking at just one album.

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

I'll mark this as confirmed, as two people are seeing the same problem.

[Victor Vargas (kamus)]

Alex, have you checked if this behaviour is still reproducible with banshee 1.8.0?

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

Yes, it still exists on a fresh install on Ubuntu 10.10

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

On Tuesday 02,November,2010 07:07 AM, Alex Cabal wrote:
> Yes, it still exists on a fresh install on Ubuntu 10.10

I'm thinking that this may be the result of database corruption. Could you try
the instructions for recovering your database on http://banshee.fm/support/faq/
and see if that helps?

Otherwise please attach your ~/.config/banshee-1/banshee.db file here for
inspection. Maybe someone can figure out what's wrong.

--
Kind regards,
Chow Loong Jin

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

It happens immediately on a fresh install so I doubt it's db corruption.
banshee.db attached.

Off the top of my head I can tell you it happens when sorting by track number ascending (but not descending) on 'All Hours Cymbals' by 'Yeasayer' and on 'Wave if You're Really There' by 'Wave Machines'. It also happens on other albums but my library is too big for me to remember other specific examples right now.

[Bertrand Lorentz (bertrand-lorentz)]

After looking into the database attached, it seems that problem is
caused by the fact that some tracks in the same album have a different disc
number:

sqlite> select TrackID, AlbumID, Year, Disc, TrackNumber, Title from coretracks
where trackid in (5927, 5928);
TrackID|AlbumID|Year|Disc|TrackNumber|Title
   5927| 484|2007| 1| 1|Sunrise
   5928| 484|2007| 0| 2|Wait For The Summer

As the disc number is used in the sort query, track number 1 ends up after
track 2.

Alex and others, could you double check the "Disc Number" in your tracks' information, and report back if it is in fact the cause of your problems ?

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

This does seem to resolve the problem, thanks. However I think this behavior is quite confusing. I don't see the disc number in the 'sort-by' columns, so when I click to sort by track, I expect the songs to be sorted by track, not by a hidden field first, then track. For example if I clicked to sort by track title, it doesn't sort by disc number first, then track title; it just sorts by track title. Is this something that would make sense to change or am I the only one thinking this way?

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

On Friday 05,November,2010 04:15 AM, Alex Cabal wrote:
> This does seem to resolve the problem, thanks. However I think this
> behavior is quite confusing. I don't see the disc number in the 'sort-
> by' columns, so when I click to sort by track, I expect the songs to be
> sorted by track, not by a hidden field first, then track. For example
> if I clicked to sort by track title, it doesn't sort by disc number
> first, then track title; it just sorts by track title. Is this
> something that would make sense to change or am I the only one thinking
> this way?
>

I don't think it would make sense to change it. When you choose to sort by track
number, Banshee sorts by album and track number. Naturally, if the album has
more than one CD, you don't want it to interleave the tracks of both CDs, but
you want all the tracks of the first CD to come first, then all the tracks of
the second, and so on.

I'm marking this invalid then.

  affects ubuntu/banshee
  status invalid

--
Kind regards,
Chow Loong Jin

[Alex Cabal (acabal)]

That might be true, but the disc number field is not visible by default. If it were visible by default and I could see that my single album was incorrectly tagged with two different disc numbers, that would be one thing, because it would be obvious why it was sorted that way. But since it's not visible, I was completely confused and assumed it was a bug, because assuming Banshee also sorts by disc number when I ask it to only sort by track number doesn't make sense to me.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to sort by something, you can't make it a hidden field, because that will lead to confusion for mis-tagged albums like mine. (I'm usually very particular about how I tag my music, but most people aren't as thorough as me). If you want to also sort by disc number when the user asks to only sort by track number, then at least show the other field you're sorting by. So it's not so much a bug as a usability problem I think.

[Mason Kidd (mrkidd)]

I just ran into this issue as well. I had a compilation album that I sorted by track number, and 2 of the tracks were out of order. Looking through the different fields, I discovered that the Year values for those two tracks were different from the rest. The year values were totally valid and I did not want to change them. The sorting should not sort by 'hidden' fields when a field is selected to sort by. If I select to sort by track number, then by gosh it should sort by track number. The sorting is trying to be too smart for it's own good.

[Ramm (ramono)]

I noticed this today, and after reading a lot around and compare track Information of the songs in the same album, I noticed that there were inconsistencies in my library, not sure yet if it can be considered as a bug, but for example:

Showing only this album, sorting by track number.
Album: Absolution
Artist: Muse
Songs: 15
The song number 15 was showing at the top of the list. (15, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,12,13,14)

Showing all albums, sorting by album
The song 15 was showing separate from other Absolution songs.

I discovered that the track information in the son 15 didn't have the 'Year' field, and that was causing it to show in a different spot. After fixing the Year, it shows correctly sorted with the other songs.

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

Setting to triaged, as the upstream bug is still open.

[James Cuzella (trinitronx)]

I am seeing this bug for 'various artists' albums being that are not marked as compilations sorted incorrectly.

I have *tons* of these in my library. Is there an easy way to auto-detect them and set them having "Compilation Album Artist" set to 'VA' ?

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

Bug was marked as a duplicate of bgo#575683

[Chow Loong Jin (hyperair)]

Marking as wontfix. See upstream bug for rationale behind this decision.