by rusty » Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:26 pm
If I understand correctly, A syncs, but B1, and C2 don't sync. Is that correct? If so, that's what's supposed to happen.
In the past, synchronization of hierarchies didn't work correctly--if the user synced C1 then in many cases, it's parents wouldn't appear correctly in MMA/MMW. Imagine this: if the user synced C1 and in MMA, A (no tracks) with child B2 (no tracks), and child C1 (with tracks) appeared. But in MMW, A has 100 tracks, and B2 has 100 tracks. So if the user then makes edits to the MMA library (e.g. adds 5 tracks to A), then what should happen? Should the more recent changes in MMA overwrite the playlist A that's in MMW? Or should it be ignored? That's why we had to make the change that we did.
If I'm misunderstanding what's happening in your case, then please elaborate.
Thanks.
-Rusty
If I understand correctly, A syncs, but B1, and C2 don't sync. Is that correct? If so, that's what's supposed to happen.
In the past, synchronization of hierarchies didn't work correctly--if the user synced C1 then in many cases, it's parents wouldn't appear correctly in MMA/MMW. Imagine this: if the user synced C1 and in MMA, A (no tracks) with child B2 (no tracks), and child C1 (with tracks) appeared. But in MMW, A has 100 tracks, and B2 has 100 tracks. So if the user then makes edits to the MMA library (e.g. adds 5 tracks to A), then what should happen? Should the more recent changes in MMA overwrite the playlist A that's in MMW? Or should it be ignored? That's why we had to make the change that we did.
If I'm misunderstanding what's happening in your case, then please elaborate.
Thanks.
-Rusty