Page 1 of 1

Specific command ID #'s fail to run in catalog. Syntax error or bug?

Posted: 23 Apr 2020 17:48
by Drasden
Specific command ID #'s fail to run in catalog. Syntax error or bug?

Until now, I've used the catalog to run scripts and point to XY function/command ID #'s without a problem.
Perhaps my error is syntax, but other command ID #'s work fine with this simple syntax as noted in the examples below.

Command Id's that produce incomplete results for me *As Scripts in the Catalog* but work as *User Buttons* and as *Keyboard commands/shortcuts* seem to be part of the same group -
" File / to clipboard "

Any suggestions are appreciated. Thank you in advance.

+ Example 1
Works in catalog
Location: ::#308// toggle thumbnails

+ Example 2
Does not work in catalog. Results incomplete(no filename). Works as a User Button and as a keyboard command.
Location: ::#101//Copy the full path/name of all selected Tree or List items.
Location: ::#102//Copy the name of all selected Tree or List items.

Using version: 20.90.0100 (07-Apr-2020)
Also tested on v.20.60.0200 w/same results

Re: Specific command ID #'s fail to run in catalog. Syntax error or bug?

Posted: 23 Apr 2020 18:07
by highend
It's not a syntax error. Don't know if this can be called a bug. Maybe it is, maybe it's designed that way.
Don has to answer this

The problem is the focus. If you hit a catalog entry that uses #101 you'll see something like this in the status bar:

Code: Select all

copied to clipboard: <path to your scripting folder>\
Now use this instead:
::focus "L"; #101

This will work fine...

Re: Specific command ID #'s fail to run in catalog. Syntax error or bug?

Posted: 23 Apr 2020 22:02
by Drasden
Hi Highend, Thank you for the solution. Works fine in the cases that I tested.

Yes, it is odd because other commands like #128 (rename filename to all caps) should have the same issue with focus but do not.

Anyhow, noted and thanks again.

Re: Specific command ID #'s fail to run in catalog. Syntax error or bug?

Posted: 13 Oct 2020 16:21
by admin
I agree it's odd. In the next beta #101; will be enough.