No announcement yet.

Scripted compare ignored size differences

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scripted compare ignored size differences

    I've been using comparison scripts for many years now, to synch with a remote server, but all of a sudden files are being missed (and I am wondering whether there is perhaps an issue with the year rollover).

    I am only comparing by size, and there are obvious differences, but BC (3.3.5 15075) is not copying those files.

    The script is called compare.txt, and is called via a batch file that contains only this line: "d:\Program Files (x86)\Beyond Compare 3\BCompare.exe" @compare.txt

    I have squeezed all the relevant information into the attached image, so hopefully that'll explain it all:

  • #2

    Thanks for that screen capture. The Sync Update logic will only copy files with a status of Newer or Orphan. If your files were Orphan (only on the Source side) before, then they would be copied, but any aligned files would not. This is because without a timestamp criteria files cannot be Newer or Older, only Different, and Different files are not copied by Update. Sync Mirror would have copied them, but Mirror would also delete files in the Target if they were Orphan.

    If you do not want to use a Timestamp criteria, your sync can be accomplished in three lines by selecting left.diff.files and left.orphan.files then using the copy command on that selection, rather than using the built in Sync Update.

    load "folder1" "folder2"
    expand all
    select left.diff.files left.orphan.files
    copy left->right

    Which version of Beyond Compare were you using previously? Any BC3.x release should have had similar logic.
    Aaron P Scooter Software


    • #3
      I've always used the latest version of BC, but I recently remove the timestamp criteria, so I guess that's what screwed things up. I wasn't aware that a size only update only works on orphans (I thought that, as long as they're different, they will be updated in the direction specified).

      Thanks for your recommendation, and I will give it a try, but as far as the example is concerned, shouldn't it be load "folder2" "folder1" (since I'm copying from folder2 to folder1)?


      • #4
        Sorry, yes. When I read through your example picture I transposed the names. You can load in any order and copy in any direction, but for your example you did have folder2 on the left, and then copied left to right.
        Aaron P Scooter Software