[TC 11.50b3] Verify checksums: verify by clipboard does not reset selection when other hash is chosen

[white]

Verify checksums: verify by clipboard does not reset selection when other hash is chosen.

• Suppose TC is configured to assume SHA2 when a 256bit hash is found on the clipboard.
• Copy a BLAKE3 hash to the clipboard and verify the concerning file.
• The check fails of course because TC assumed SHA2, because of this the file is selected in the main panel (gets red color).
• Now select BLAKE3.
• TC checks again using BLAKE3 but does not unselect the file first (in contrast to the start of the function, then selected files are unselected first).

[ghisler(Author)]

You mean that it doesn't remove the selection of the file? If yes, I can confirm that.

[white]

You mean that it doesn't remove the selection of the file? If yes, I can confirm that.

Yes, that's it.

[white]

29.10.24 Fixed: Verify checksums with checksum from clipboard: When the file was selected because of the wrong checksum method (e.g. BLAKE3 instead of SHA256), the selection wasn't removed after checking with the correct method (32/64)

Works as designed in TC 11.50b4 32-bit and 64-bit. I wonder though if it should be unselected first and selected when wrong.

P.S. Why do you use for example the text "SHA2+SHA3_256+BLAKE3" in title bar during checking? Because BLAKE3+SHA2_256+SHA3_256 is hard to read? Then why not use:
BLAKE3+SHA2+SHA3 (256 bits)

[ghisler(Author)]

There is no specific reason for the displayed order, I don't think it matters that much.

[white]

There is no specific reason for the displayed order, I don't think it matters that much.

Why? Because you think it doesn't matter if people understand what it says, or because you think that people understand it anyway?
Would it be possible to use the format: BLAKE3+SHA2+SHA3 (256 bits)? I think that would be the clearest for users.

[ghisler(Author)]

The title is actually SHA2+3_256+BLAKE3.
Your suggestion is not only significantly longer, it also requires translation.

[white]

The title is actually SHA2+3_256+BLAKE3.
Your suggestion is not only significantly longer, it also requires translation.

Your text is shorter, but takes much longer to read. Perhaps this is a good alternative (note that BLAKE3 is a 256 bit hash too):

BLAKE3+SHA2+SHA3 (_256)

That's consistent with the way it is displayed at the bottom and much more readable than:

SHA2+3_256+BLAKE3

[ghisler(Author)]

Sorry, I will leave it as it is for now. It would require too many changes.

Moderator message from: ghisler(Author) » 2024-11-01, 16:32 UTC

Moved to will not be changed