Transmission needs to verify local data after "Set Location"

[crocket]

Other clients verify local data before they start downloading, so they don't overwrite on already existing data when I give them a new torrent which is to be downloaded on a place where data exists.

However, transmission doesn't automatically check local data before downloading and downloads on top of existing data unless I manually have it check local data.

If transmission verified local data whenever it needed to, users would have less headache in their lives.

I think there could be some points where veriying local data is beneficial. 1) after a torrent is added but before a torrent starts downloading 2) etc...

[crocket]

Actually, transmission verifies local data when it adds a new torrent to the default download folder. So it was my mistake. But when I set another non-default location for a torrent with "Set Location" and there is already 100% of data, transmission doesn't automatically verify local data and is happy to overwrite on existing data.

transmission should automatically verify after "Set Location".

[jordan]

ticket #4567 has been closed as a duplicate of this ticket.

[ewtoombs]

I have the same problem. This is pretty serious. I wouldn't call this a mere enhancement when this is what any sane client should do. I'm changing this to a bug.

[spaz926]

Came on to report this. Glad I found the same problem. I have been automatically adding and starting torrents when the .torrent file is added to my downloads folder. I downloaded a linux distro last night and when I thought I didn't need it I removed the torrent from Transmission. Turned out I actually did need it and so I downloaded it again today only to see the torrent restarting. I had to manually uncheck the "only if" options and manually verify local data before it realized half of the file was already there. Transmission needs to verify local data on import by default even when automatically added.

[cryptochrome]

I just stumbeled across the same issue. I am kind of puzzeled that this hasn't been touched in the 2 years since this ticket has been opened.

Is anyone from the devs looking at this?

[jordan]

Looks like bug #4649 is a duplicate of this ticket.

However, I'm going to close this one as #4649 is seeing more action and has a patch developing.

[crocket]

jordan : How can this be a duplicate of #4649?

I read #4649, and #4649 doesn't seem to be involve with "set location" nor with verification of data "before" a torrent starts.

#4649 is about verification of data "after" a torrent completes.

I need an explanation.

[cryptochrome]

Actually, this does not seem to be a duplicate of #4649. 4649 is about generally doing a local verify upon download completion. This ticket here is about Transmission not verifying local data when adding a torrent that has previsouly been downloaded and the data is already there. Two completely different issues!

[x190]

---

[crocket]

How do I test the patch?

[x190]

Replying to crocket:

How do I test the patch?

Not ready for testing! :-\

[ant75]

Just experienced this bug in Transmission. Didn't realize what was going on! I used to use uTorrent on my windows PC but are now switching to Transmission which runs in my router. When I added the torrents they would start to verify but if the router crashed or reset for some reason then they would just sit stopped when the router was back up. If I clicked on them to manually start them they would not automatically verify but would start to re-download entirely from start! I found that I had to manually click verify to get them to use the downloaded data. Crazy...

We need Transmission to automatically manage all this! Other clients do it right. uTorrent did! Transmission needs to automatically verify and start this process after being restarted. Its useless to have the Torrents all sitting like dead ducks and doing nothing because we haven't manually clicked on verify! And to think that if we click on start instead of verify that the whole thing re-downloads..... What?

Seems like a long time to wait for a reasonably simple bug? What gives?