Search within archives

[obeg]

The ordinary search within archives works like as I expect.

I now have a special need that I want to know if anyone can help me with.
I have a big number of files that are zip-files, but they are without extension.
Inside them are logfiles that over 100 MB big, that I want to find and delete.

Browsing them with 'CTRL+PG DOWN' or 'ENTER' works fine

If i rename the files to *.zip, then it works flawlessly, it is just to check "Search archives" and go.

But renaming all files to *.zip, do the search, delete unwanted files and then remove extension again is no option. Do you have any other ideas?

[jinsight]

'CTRL+PG DOWN' or 'ENTER' work fine here without the extension or, even, an incorrect extension.

[MVV]

obeg,
There is an INI option SearchInFiles in Configuration section of wincmd.ini that allows specifying additional extensions of archive files:

SearchInFiles=
Here you can specify additional archive types in which you want to search with the Search function. Example: SearchInFiles=*.EXE *.JAR

I think your goal should be achieved using *. mask for this option.

[obeg]

I think your goal should be achieved using *. mask for this option.

Yes, this was what I was looking for. Unfortunately when I try it, it works for specifying additional extensions but not without extension like *.
Also tried with "*." and '*.'

[ZoSTeR]

Try

Code: Select all

SearchInFiles=*.*

[MVV]

Try

Code: Select all

SearchInFiles=*.*

This may slow process down if TC will try to check every file for its own archive types and plugins...

Unfortunately when I try it, it works for specifying additional extensions but not without extension like *.
Also tried with "*." and '*.'

I can confirm that it doesn't work for files w/o extension. I think it should be reported as a bug.
My setting was:

Code: Select all

SearchInFiles=*.*_ *.

(first entry is for single-file Microsoft CAB archives from e.g. old Windows distributives)

[DrShark]

Unfortunately when I try it, it works for specifying additional extensions but not without extension like *.
[...]

I can confirm that it doesn't work for files w/o extension. I think it should be reported as a bug.

In Windows file without extension is a file without a dot, isn't it? The mask *. contains a dot. I guess for such kind of search RegEx should be used, but the parameter SearchInFiles doesn't seem to support it.

[MVV]

In Windows file without extension is a file without a dot, isn't it? The mask *. contains a dot.

Well, it sounds logica in case of simple wildcard check.
However it would be nice if TC could match files w/o extension using *. mask here (i.e. assume that file w/o any dots ends with a dot). Note that it already works so in regular Select Group (Num+) function.

In Windows

BTW, are there any systems that separate extension from filename using dot but where file w/o extension is a file with a dot?

[DrShark]

However it would be nice if TC could match files w/o extension using *. mask here (i.e. assume that file w/o any dots ends with a dot). Note that it already works so in regular Select Group (Num+) function.

It also works in Find files "Search for:" field, so from this point it can be considered as a bug with SearchInFiles parameter.

Personally I would prefer to have a distinction between * (mean of any name) and *.* (mean of any name with extension) requests, so the search request
* | *.*
could search for files without extension. It can be suggested as a new option for TC, but it shouldn't be enabled by default because that way it will ruin a lot of already made search templates.

Alternative is the my above suggestion to add a RegEx support for SearchInFiles parameter.

BTW, are there any systems that separate extension from filename using dot but where file w/o extension is a file with a dot?

I didn't use all of the operating systems, maybe some OS use some other character than a dot to define a file extension...

[obeg]

This may slow process down if TC will try to check every file for its own archive types and plugins...

Of course it would, but it would only be used when needed.

I guess it could be considered a bug, but then a very minor one with possible side effects as above and very limited use. If it hadn't been for my special need I would not have thought it useful.

Thanks for the help!