Philip Guzman
35 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# Orphaned audio detection
|
|
|
|
## Problem
|
|
|
|
“Not in a crate” does not mean unused. Many DJs keep active tracks in Serato's
|
|
main library without placing them in a crate. Treating those files as orphans
|
|
would create dangerous deletion pressure.
|
|
|
|
## Design
|
|
|
|
Serato Doctor now separates two read-only findings:
|
|
|
|
- **Not in crates**: scanned tracks whose normalized filename is absent from all
|
|
loaded crate references. These may still be ordinary Serato library tracks.
|
|
- **Possible orphan files**: tracks absent by normalized filename from both
|
|
loaded crates and database V2.
|
|
|
|
When database V2 is unavailable, orphan status is reported as not assessed—not
|
|
zero. Orphan candidates include preview and Finder controls but no delete or
|
|
repair action.
|
|
|
|
## Edge cases
|
|
|
|
- Filename comparison is case- and Unicode-normalized.
|
|
- A track in several folders may still require duplicate review separately.
|
|
- Smart-crate materialized references count as crate evidence.
|
|
- Missing database V2 prevents a defensible orphan conclusion.
|
|
|
|
## Tests
|
|
|
|
- Tracks known only to database V2 are excluded from orphan candidates.
|
|
- Tracks in crates are excluded even if absent from database V2.
|
|
- A track absent from both sources is counted once.
|
|
- No database produces a not-assessed result.
|