Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

False positive on simple test/text files. #1252

Open
Avispa opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

False positive on simple test/text files. #1252

Avispa opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
bug Bug reports. needs-reproduction A bug that has not been able to be reproduced.

Comments

@Avispa
Copy link

Avispa commented Sep 24, 2024

Describe the bug

Finds duplicate on differing text files.

How to reproduce

  1. Create two folders: tmp/a, tmp/b
  2. Create text file a.txt in tmp/a with content aaa
  3. Copy tmp/a/a.txt to tmp/b/.
  4. Open tmp/b/a.txt and change content to baa

Select Application Mode "Standard" and Scan Type "Contents".

Expected behavior

Although the file size and file name are equal, since I selected "Contents", I expect no duplicates.

System

  • OS: Windows 10
  • Version: 4.3.1
@Avispa Avispa added the bug Bug reports. label Sep 24, 2024
@arsenetar arsenetar added the needs-reproduction A bug that has not been able to be reproduced. label Sep 25, 2024
@arsenetar
Copy link
Owner

arsenetar commented Sep 25, 2024

This is not reproducible on my systems, additionally tests would likely also catch if this were an issue. Following the instructions provided here results in the expected behavior of no duplicates when standard content scan is used.

@Avispa
Copy link
Author

Avispa commented Sep 25, 2024

This is not reproducible on my systems, additionally tests would likely also catch if this were an issue. Following the instructions provided here results in the expected behavior of no duplicates when standard content scan is used.

I understand your scepsis. To be fair I also wonder if I just overlook the obvious (that's why I also stumbled over the UX confusion about "hardness" -- see other comment of mine on an old and closed issue). Feel free to tell me what I shall check for...

In the meantime:
false-dupe

@Avispa
Copy link
Author

Avispa commented Sep 25, 2024

Was experimenting a bit more. Although I didn't manage to re-create the false positive of before so far but therefore I can create false negatives now too.

Okay, I made it!

How to reproduce

  1. ... besides the obvious steps ...
  2. Create duplicate
  3. SCAN
  4. Change file content.
  5. Scan again -- app calls duplicate though content changed.

Are you using some sort of cash and not clearing former results maybe?

Do you maybe save the cash/results into a file? (Oddly enough it survives a application restart too.)

@Dobatymo
Copy link
Contributor

Dobatymo commented Dec 6, 2024

There is a hash cache. But it should check for size AND modification timestamps. Is your file system not correctly updating these? What file system are you on? Is it a network drive?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Bug reports. needs-reproduction A bug that has not been able to be reproduced.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants