Recommended Posts

I have read the documentation, specifically the following:

"4.6 - ReleaseDate

This property defines the date on which the setup file the module installs was created. It must be an eight digit number in the format YYYYMMDD (year, month, day).

* However * This property is much more important than it sounds. It actually defines the order that things are installed! AutoPatcher will install modules in the order: older date to newer date (smaller number to bigger). It also has an effect on the order things are listed in the selection window. "

I basically want to list the Stand Alone programs in alphabetical order. First I tried setting the release date all the same - that didn't work. Then I tried setting the release date to a sequence: 20000101, 20000110, 20000120, 20000130. I expected these 4 items to be sorted accordingly, but no luck.

(BTW, the standalone.apm parent file has a release date of 00000005).

This happened in 5.6.72 and 5.6.76

Any suggestions?

-John

  M2Ys4U said:
As far as I know ReleaseDate is the oder in which things are installed, not displayed. I do not think you can control the order.

I know that the documentation is not always correct but it does say:

"It also has an effect on the order things are listed in the selection window."

I guess I was assuming that this "effect" was something I could utilize to alpha sort the selection list.

-John

i believed it did when i wrote the documentation because i gave sub-parents lower values and they appeared first. i didn't actually experiment though i have to admit and it could have been through raptors design that sub-parents come first... if so a correction to the documentation is in order... (on the todo list to check it out at some point and correct if necessary)

I've been playing with the order a lot so I know the answer to this one. The display order is 100 percent dependent on the module's releasedate property. Lowest release date on top, highest on bottom.

I was thinking about asking Raptor to create a new property to control the order of displayed updates compared to what order they are installed in but I've been having him play with the executable so much lately, I was going to suggest this later. <hint, hint>

  Tenchi103 said:
I've been playing with the order a lot so I know the answer to this one. The display order is 100 percent dependent on the module's releasedate property. Lowest release date on top, highest on bottom.

I was thinking about asking Raptor to create a new property to control the order of displayed updates compared to what order they are installed in but I've been having him play with the executable so much lately, I was going to suggest this later. <hint, hint>

Tenchi103,

Sounds like it works for you - what am I doing wrong? - I tried setting the ReleaseDate for 4 modules to a sequence: 20000101, 20000110, 20000120, 20000130. I expected these 4 modules to be sorted accordingly, but no luck!

Thanks, John

  Tenchi103 said:
How are you're modules currenlty being displayed when you run AP?

I tried a number of different schemes, even setting all the ReleaseDates to the same number (9010). Here is a list of the ReleaseDates from the APM files in the same order as displayed on the 'List of Available Items' screen:

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=20000130

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=00000050

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=20000120

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=00009010

ReleaseDate=20000101

ReleaseDate=20000110

I am running AP ver 5.6.76, but the same was happenong with 5.6.72

-John

First thing you should always practice is to create a standard naming scheme for your ReleaseDates making sure that the number is greater than the parent module they are in.

Try beginning with 2000005 and go in increments of 5 (Example: 2000005, 2000010, 2000015...)

Give this a try and see what happens.

  Tenchi103 said:
First thing you should always practice is to create a standard naming scheme for your ReleaseDates making sure that the number is greater than the parent module they are in.

Try beginning with 2000005 and go in increments of 5 (Example: 2000005, 2000010, 2000015...)

Give this a try and see what happens.

Tenchi103,

I finally found some time to play with the ReleaseDate. I set the modules to the following sequence:

ReleaseDate=20000110

ReleaseDate=20000120

ReleaseDate=20000130

....

ReleaseDate=20000360

And the Parent Module had a ReleaseDate=00000005

No luck, display order had no relationship to ReleaseDate order.

BUT, when I changed the Parent Module ReleaseDate to 20000005 it all worked fine!

So I hope this helps others....

John

  major4579 said:
Tenchi103,

I finally found some time to play with the ReleaseDate. I set the modules to the following sequence:

ReleaseDate=20000110

ReleaseDate=20000120

ReleaseDate=20000130

....

ReleaseDate=20000360

And the Parent Module had a ReleaseDate=00000005

No luck, display order had no relationship to ReleaseDate order.

BUT, when I changed the Parent Module ReleaseDate to 20000005 it all worked fine!

So I hope this helps others....

John

I'm curious, is the parent module you created inside another module or is it on the root of AP? If it's inside another module, this would explain why you had to up the ReleaseDate from 00000005 to 20000005. (The parent module has have a larger number than the module that it's in)

  Tenchi103 said:
I'm curious, is the parent module you created inside another module or is it on the root of AP? If it's inside another module, this would explain why you had to up the ReleaseDate from 00000005 to 20000005. (The parent module has have a larger number than the module that it's in)

It's a root module - the APM file resides in "\autopatcher\modules".

All the actual modules (the ones I numbered sequentially) reside in "\Autopatcher\modules\stand_alone_mods".

Here's the contents of the root module APM file:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AutoPatcher 5.6 Module]

[General]

Title=Stand-Alone Modules

Description=

Author=Various

ModuleAuthor=ModuleEditor2

WebPage=

ReleaseDate=20000005

[behavior]

ParentID=

UniqueID=STAND_ALONE_PARENT

Critical=False

AutoExpand=True

Depends=

TimeToInstall=0

TimeToRemove=0

RequiresReboot=False

[DetectionRegistry]

RegistryPath=

KeyName=

KeyValue=

[DetectionFile]

FilePath=

FileName=

FileVersion=

[OperatingSystem]

WindowsVersion=ANY

SystemLanguage=1033

[systemComponents]

InternetExplorer=ANY

WindowsMediaPlayer=ANY

DotNetFramework=ANY

WindowsInstaller=ANY

MSNMessenger=ANY

[OfficeComponents]

Word=ANY

Excel=ANY

PowerPoint=ANY

Outlook=ANY

Publisher=ANY

Visio=ANY

Project=ANY

OneNote=ANY

FrontPage=ANY

InfoPath=ANY

Access=ANY

[installation]

[Removal]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-John

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "all the way down" by 33 whole dollars. Amazing. You shouldn't have.
    • If they make a portable version, I might give it a try, but I will always prefer hotkeys to that approach
    • The Synology DS923+ is down to $610 just for today on Newegg by Steven Parker Right now on Newegg, and only for today (June 26) you can find the Synology DS923+ discounted all the way down to $609.99 when using a coupon during checkout, down from it's normal $642.99 price. Although we haven't reviewed the DS923+ on Neowin, we have seen Synology before and rated it quite highly. Besides, the DS1522 even has the same AMD R1600 CPU. Some people would consider Synology homelab NAS equipment the "gold standard", and as such, competitors strive to do as good, at least in regard to the Operating System, DSM, which ticks all the boxes for amateurs, professionals and small business users for its inclusion of mobile apps for core app services such as Surveillance Station, and more. Here are the most important specifications: Synology DS923+ CPU AMD Ryzen R1600 2-core 2.6 (base) / 3.1 (turbo) GHz Graphics No Memory 4 GB DDR4 SODIMM, maximum 32 GB (16 GB x 2) Disk Capacity 72 TB (18TB x 4) RAID Level RAID 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, and JBOD + SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID) Network 2 x RJ-45 1 GbE Internal storage 2 x M.2 2280 NVMe Slot USB Ports 1 x USB 3.2 (5 Gbps) HDMI 1 x Expansion 1 x eSATA 1 x Gen3 x2 network upgrade slot Size (H/W/D) 166 mm x 199 mm x 223 mm Weight 2.24 kg Power 35.51 W (Access) 11.52 W (HDD Hibernation) What's in the box? Main Unit X 1 Accessory Pack X 1 AC Power Adapter X 1 AC Power Cord X 1 RJ-45 LAN Cable X 2 Quick Installation Guide X 1 You may notice that the DS923+ does not have integrated graphics, which is a step down from earlier Intel-based models that did include an iGPU. However, even this year's model (the DS925+) does not include an iGPU with its slightly newer AMD Ryzen Embedded V1500B CPU, but also unhelpfully locks down what you can use in it. All 2025 models require hardware from Synology's own compatibility list, this currently does not affect the DS923+. In addition you are only getting dual 1 GB Ethernet with the DS923+, so you may need to factor in the cost of adding the 10 GbE PCIe network card, which sells for $110.99 on Newegg. Ultimately, deciding on a NAS device comes to down to your individual requirements. For example, more bays is not always better, especially once you factor in the price of hard drives. Those with more modest storage requirements may be better off with a 2-bay device. From my personal experience, DSM 7.2 is great, it's so great that I have installed it on my TerraMaster F4-424 Max. Finally, and perhaps more importantly many tinkerers would prefer building their own server which is definitely a cheaper option, but without the polish of a dedicated NAS. If you have no need to transcode video on the fly and want a four bay NAS device, then the DS923+ is a great solution for every other use case and I can highly recommend it. Synology DS923+ for $609.99 on Newegg (was $642.99) Enter coupon code SACET2369 for above price during checkout
    • I don't think it's childish, but I do think it would be ineffective. If I was addicted to social media I would just disable the extension when I wanted to visit the certain sites.
    • Did you copy SuperHands's post and just reword it 🤣
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Kavin25 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      Leonard grant earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pcdoctorsnet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rising Star
      Phillip0web went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      Epaminombas earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      529
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      207
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      168
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      150
    5. 5
      snowy owl
      126
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!