Posted 23 January 2015 - 19:04
Because it is not needed at all at this moment as hidden bouquets and services are hidden....
The bug when the first bouquet was hidden is solved yesterday night....
I checked it here in several ways.... hidden is working - so this work-a-round patch not required anymore. I would recommend to check it yourself.
The why you could read in the revert commit.....
Edited by littlesat, 23 January 2015 - 19:08.
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 23 January 2015 - 19:11
Yes the first bouquet fix was necessary but without this commit my bouquets.tv posted above will not work.
Posted 23 January 2015 - 19:12
It does works fine here for 100% as I tested it.... So patch is not required...
When it is not working for you something else is wrong....
Hidden is checked in cpp and it hides those bouquets...
Edited by littlesat, 23 January 2015 - 19:21.
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 23 January 2015 - 19:32
Ok, thanks for the fix. I have to wait for a build so I can test.
Posted 23 January 2015 - 19:53
Sorry when the comments on the revert were not clear.....
The issue with the bouquet at the start of the topic was that the first service was hidden.... To not include it in the list load was in fact an work-a-round. I hope I now solved it at the 'core' of the issue... 
Edited by littlesat, 23 January 2015 - 19:55.
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 23 January 2015 - 22:18
Littlesat, please can you post a link to the commit.
Posted 23 January 2015 - 22:53
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 23 January 2015 - 22:58
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 24 January 2015 - 01:26
The revert commjt or the real fix...
I did make the rewl fix in two stages... One was the fix... But I could make ik a bit less complicated so I needed a second one...
Well so far it has worked fine in my tests.
Posted 6 February 2015 - 02:31
Because it is not needed at all at this moment as hidden bouquets and services are hidden....
This is absolutely still needed otherwise the hidden bouquets will show in OpenWebIF.
Posted 6 February 2015 - 07:37
Sorry... this is a change that should be made in OpenWebIF.... OpenWebIF should handle hiden services and bouquets and it seems it doesn't 
. It should also handle hiden numbered markers...
We should goal for a structured way and not for yet another work-a-round...
Edited by littlesat, 6 February 2015 - 07:40.
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 6 February 2015 - 07:59
Posted 6 February 2015 - 11:03
What do you mean?
When I checked hiden bouquets here I do simply do not see them in ChannelSelection...
it could be in some EPG lists or GMEPG hidden services must still be hiden... 
Note until know only 'hacking' 3rd party plugins do use hidden bouquets and hidden services...
I always wanted to change the way parental lock is coded... I want to get rid of those white and black lists and just add a flag to a service... But when I change this we get incompatible with those settings editors (and the current settings).... Therefore I did not make this yet...
Edited by littlesat, 6 February 2015 - 11:07.
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 6 February 2015 - 14:14
The hidden flag method was available, so the bouquet creation plugins used it. I don't see anything wrong with that. Personal opinion is it is nicer than how than how Fastcan does it with a blank space. What's the point in having an entry in the list that doesn't work?
Posted 6 February 2015 - 14:30
Here's a screen grab. Note channel 31 doesn't exist for this provider so is completely missing from the list. IMO much more user friendly then a big block of visible markers wherever there is a gap in the provider's list.
grab.jpg 86.25KB
1 downloads
Edited by Huevos, 6 February 2015 - 14:31.
Posted 6 February 2015 - 15:06
That is how it should be.... Just set hide number markers to Yes.....
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 6 February 2015 - 15:56
Ok, but I still don't understand why you think it is a hack to use a feature that is built in to the image?
Posted 6 February 2015 - 17:07
Sorry I cannot follow/understand what you are meaning right now....
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 6 February 2015 - 18:30
I saw in openvix you bought back the do not load hidden bouquets hack... Please note in fact this should be solved of course in the OpenWebif itself...
Edited by littlesat, 6 February 2015 - 18:30.
WaveFrontier 28.2E | 23.5E | 19.2E | 16E | 13E | 10/9E | 7E | 5E | 1W | 4/5W | 15W
Posted 6 February 2015 - 19:42
I saw in openvix you bought back the do not load hidden bouquets hack... Please note in fact this should be solved of course in the OpenWebif itself...
Littlesat, I was mistaken about that (lack of sleep). I reinstated that line of code to fix G-EPG not hiding the hidden bouquets. It does not cure the problem in OpenWebIF. This problem has always been there in OpenWebIF, just no one realized before.
Needs to be fixed in ./controllers/models/services.py -> getBouquets()
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
