Just wondering, whether this behaviour is expected: according to MAME/MAWS ddrja seems to consist of only the nodump (gc845ja.u1) and CHD 845jab02.chd. With "hide missing" checked , the set is still marked as missing. My guess is, that this is because there exists no zip archive ddrja.zip for this set in this case, correct?
I seem to remember that this had happened once before for another set and you had answered this already then. But I could not find the thread now, so I maybe wrong.

> Just wondering, whether this behaviour is expected: according to MAME/MAWS ddrja
> seems to consist of only the nodump (gc845ja.u1) and CHD 845jab02.chd. With
> "hide missing" checked , the set is still marked as missing. My guess is, that
> this is because there exists no zip archive ddrja.zip for this set in this case,
> correct?
> I seem to remember that this had happened once before for another set and you
> had answered this already then. But I could not find the thread now, so I maybe
> wrong.
>


The set ddrja consists of a nodump rom and a chd. If you don't have either of it (and got 'sets' + 'missing' enabled), the 'set' ddrja is listed as missing because no part of the set was found. Not the roms, not the chds. It has nothing to do with the rom being a nodump.

I still wonder why people always connect the term 'set' with roms ;) A set can be a collection of chds only for example. Or a chd + sample files or ... or ... or...


Roman Scherzer

> The set ddrja consists of a nodump rom and a chd. If you don't have either of it
> (and got 'sets' + 'missing' enabled), the 'set' ddrja is listed as missing
> because no part of the set was found. Not the roms, not the chds. It has nothing
> to do with the rom being a nodump.
>
> I still wonder why people always connect the term 'set' with roms ;) A set can
> be a collection of chds only for example. Or a chd + sample files or ... or ...
> or...
>
>
> Roman Scherzer
>

OK, maybe I was not clear enough, but I think I understand better now with your explanation. I did scan for sets and ROMs, not for CHDs or samples. So, as long as you have anything in your collection belonging to one particular set - roms, CHDs, samples, or whatever the future might bring - this set would not be marked as missing, only the specific item of this set, which is missing, e.g. the CHD. If that item is marked as nodump and you checked "hide nodump", nothing is going to be reported. In this case now, as there is no CHD and the only other item is the nodump ROM, the "missing set" is actually triggered by the missing CHD (even though it is not scanned for CHDs). I was sort of thrown off by the fact that no other set with missing CHDs was reported, which is of course explained by the fact that there exist roms for them. Makes sense.

> explanation. I did scan for sets and ROMs, not for CHDs or samples. So, as long

The 'set' check will still look for something valid for the 'set'. So that's either the setname archive (.zip, .rar, .7z) or a setname subfolder.


Roman Scherzer

> The 'set' check will still look for something valid for the 'set'. So that's
> either the setname archive (.zip, .rar, .7z) or a setname subfolder.
>

That's exactly what I meant with my rather lengthy description, just not quite to the point as your explanation. Thanks Roman.

Although I knew the difference between set and ROMs, I have never really thought about all the consequences that this has for the scanning process and its reported results, because in most cases a set would contain ROMs, and if something was missing besides the ROMs, the reason was clear.

Everything just worked fine for me most the time, as for everyone else, and then you come across some pathological issue, and you start to wonder.

> > The 'set' check will still look for something valid for the 'set'. So that's
> > either the setname archive (.zip, .rar, .7z) or a setname subfolder.
> >
>
> That's exactly what I meant with my rather lengthy description, just not quite
> to the point as your explanation. Thanks Roman.
>
> Although I knew the difference between set and ROMs, I have never really thought
> about all the consequences that this has for the scanning process and its
> reported results, because in most cases a set would contain ROMs, and if
> something was missing besides the ROMs, the reason was clear.
>
> Everything just worked fine for me most the time, as for everyone else, and then
> you come across some pathological issue, and you start to wonder.
>


I guess you can fool cmpro by simply adding an empty subfolder for the chd.


Roman Scherzer

> I guess you can fool cmpro by simply adding an empty subfolder for the chd.
>

No worries! I can live with the ominous red dot staying where it is. Just want to make sure that I use your tool in the proper way, and in this case to understand better what it reported and why it did so. Thanks for all your explanations, everything crystal-clear here now.