Calculate folder-sizes according to visual filter

[vegard]

Topic should be self-explanatory.

I got this idea from this post at SA.
A utility called TreeSize (professional version) can do this and more.

I think that when I have specified to show only *.txt-files (and folders), showing that a folder has a size of for example 100 MiB when it contains no *.txt-files, is counter-intuitive to the purposes of a visual filter.

[admin]

Yes, not bad, although "Empty" could be dangerously misleading for a folder that just does not have any TXT files.

[vegard]

Good point.

Perhaps a setting in "Preferences", "Calculate folder-sizes for all files" (default) and "Calculate folder-sizes for visual filter"?

[admin]

Yes, I made a note. Might add it to 9.30.

[vegard]

Another idea, on the same topic.

If I have chosen a view. Then I have made a choice, and I expect that the operations that I wish to perform, pertain to that view only, not as if I hadn't chosen a view.

Meaning.
If, with this view, folder-sizes shows me a folder having 10 MiB (of txt-files), then I would expect that if I chose to delete that folder - IN THIS VIEW - then only txt-files under that folder would be deleted.
And next, the folder itself would still exist, and show 0 bytes.

EDIT: DISREGARD THIS POST (it's only confusing, let's keep it to the original topic).

[admin]

Another idea, on the same topic.

If I have chosen a view. Then I have made a choice, and I expect that the operations that I wish to perform, pertain to that view only, not as if I hadn't chosen a view.

Meaning.
If, with this view, folder-sizes shows me a folder having 10 MiB (of txt-files), then I would expect that if I chose to delete that folder - IN THIS VIEW - then only txt-files under that folder would be deleted.
And next, the folder itself would still exist, and show 0 bytes.

Yes, logical within your idea, but a pretty radically new concept of a folder, resp. showing how radical your idea is. Should be discussed...

[PeterH]

Another idea, on the same topic.

If I have chosen a view. Then I have made a choice, and I expect that the operations that I wish to perform, pertain to that view only, not as if I hadn't chosen a view.

Meaning.
If, with this view, folder-sizes shows me a folder having 10 MiB (of txt-files), then I would expect that if I chose to delete that folder - IN THIS VIEW - then only txt-files under that folder would be deleted.
And next, the folder itself would still exist, and show 0 bytes.

Yes, logical within your idea, but a pretty radically new concept of a folder, resp. showing how radical your idea is. Should be discussed...

From the view of deletion the idea has something,
*but* I would never "delete" a folder meaning to delete only a subset of this folder.

Sorry - I would be too afraid to do that.

[Stefan]

I didn't find it radical that all file operations/reports
would respect the current view/selection only, but logically.

Only for an warning, maybe there should be optional an different background color of the pane if an filter is in use.
(the hint in the tab isn't clearly/seen always)
Or as an workaround maybe an optional warning dialog box "Att: operations works only for current filter"

[PeterH]

Don't get me wrong: I would think it's good to have a means to delete kind of "grouped" objects.
That is: of many objects only some group will be deleted.

If I delete a folder, I expect the folder to be deleted - i.e. it vanishes.
But if only a part of the contents of a folder vanishes, it is no folder-delete, and should not be initiated by "deleting a folder", IMO.

[Stefan]

Hi Peter, my post was an response to Admin, not directly to you

If I delete a folder, I expect the folder to be deleted - i.e. it vanishes.

Of course i agree.
But that was never the question... AFAIR (no time to reread now)...it was always
about filtered files (and maybe sub-folders, if that could happen) in an folder...not an folder itself.

Because if i would delete an folder i didn't SEE what the current filter settings do...
i think it's all about the VIEW > "WYSIWYG"

If i delete an subfolder which have FV set i would expect to delete the whole folder content (don't respect FV).
If i be inside an folder with FV set i would expect to delete/copy/report/etc. only what is visible by FV.
(isn't that not already like this ... no time to test this all, sorry)


Or did this make everything more complicated and confuse the average user?

Now i have spend yet to much time

[PeterH]

Hi Stefan, for me the request was (underline by me):

Another idea, on the same topic.

If I have chosen a view. Then I have made a choice, and I expect that the operations that I wish to perform, pertain to that view only, not as if I hadn't chosen a view.

Meaning.
If, with this view, folder-sizes shows me a folder having 10 MiB (of txt-files), then I would expect that if I chose to delete that folder - IN THIS VIEW - then only txt-files under that folder would be deleted.
And next, the folder itself would still exist, and show 0 bytes.

And this says: delete the folder, to delete (in this case) only .txt-files. And this is, what I would not like.

[vegard]

The delete-thing only muddles the issue, sorry for that (also it can easily be done with search).

Getting back on track, main point here is displaying size of folders relative to the chosen visual filter.
I believe this is the way it should have been from the beginning, but in order to be backwards-compatible say we add a flag in "Preferences" where this new-and-more-correct way of doing this can be optionally chosen.

[nony]

I would like to suggest a option to cache the folder sizes too...maybe for some time...
I use to delete empty directories from program files. If some directories have few kb's so i enter them to see....on coming back i have to recalculate sizes....