The following little function works for me: I run it after new music has
arrived.
(defun emms-add-files-to-cache ()
"Search music library for new tracks and add them to the cache."
(interactive)
(mapc (lambda (file) (emms-track 'file file))
(seq-filter #'(lambda (path) (not (gethash path emms-cache-db)))
(directory-files-recursively
"/media/shared/music" "\.mp3$\\|\.wav$\\|\.aif$\\|\.ogg"))))
---Fran
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 at 12:17, Petteri Hintsanen <pette...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 22.11.2024 23.54, Igor Sosa Mayor wrote:
>
> > I have the following problem: if I add new songs or tag old ones with
> > Picard, emms-cache-sync does not update the cache. Even not if I do C-u
> > emms-cache-sync. In some cases it is even worse: the updated albums
> > disapparead from emms-cache-db.
>
> Note that (1) emms-cache-sync does not look for new files. If you have
> added new songs, you have to add them manually with emms-add-...
> funtions to get their information into the cache.
>
> But emms-cache-sync (2) should update cache information for files that
> are already in the cache _and_ have been modified since the last cache
> update. It should also (3) remove files that are in the cache but do
> not exist on the disk anymore.
>
> As for your problem cases:
>
> (1) If you add new songs, you have to add them manually to EMMS.
>
> (2) If you tag existing songs which you have added to EMMS, their info
> should get updated by emms-cache-update. If they do not, then it is a bug.
>
> (3) If you delete songs (from the disk) that you have added to EMMS,
> they will be removed from the cache by emms-cache-update. If they do
> not, or some other file is removed, that is a bug.
>
> > I have to do: emms-cache-reset and then emms-add-directory-tree and then
> > anything is working again... Except obviously one important aspect: I
> > loose all the data about when I last played song X, song Y, etc. And I
> > am very happy using filters with emms-browser-filter-only-recent...
>
> This works but has the consequences you mention. emms-cache-sync should
> be the right thing to do.
>
> > Am I maybe doing something wrong?
>
> No, I don't think so. Caching is somewhat complicated and requires
> occasional manual work. It could be improved.
>
>
>
