Do not fail the check/unpack if the SFV check fails

[Sypher]

Lately some posts on usenet are posted with messed up sfv files.
With the sfv check enabled (by default) this would mean the unpack would fail, even though the par would have cleared and/or repaired/renamed the files.

Disabling SFV checking is an option, but it would be better if the SFV fail was not a hard fail and would proceed with par/unrar.

[shypike]

SFV files are only used when there are no par2 files
or when even having all par2 files is not enough.
So it's a last resort.
When subsequent sfv verification fails, that's a very good reason to stop.
If you don't like that, disable the option "postprocess only verified jos".
Be prepared for unrar to report CRC errors.

[Sypher]

SFV files are only used when there are no par2 files
or when even having all par2 files is not enough.
So it's a last resort.

So, the par check is done first and then sfv? The SFV appears to be failing, but quickpar can fix any issues it finds (if there are any) and the rars unpack fine as well.
Its just the SFV that has the wrong filename (on purpose) and this breaks automatic repair/unpacking and is quite annoying.
From the look of things this would most likely happen more and more.

When subsequent sfv verification fails, that's a very good reason to stop.
If you don't like that, disable the option "postprocess only verified jos".
Be prepared for unrar to report CRC errors.

But that would also lead to potential "crap" in the completed folders no?

[shypike]

1) So, the par check is done first and then sfv?
2) But that would also lead to potential "crap" in the completed folders no?

1) If par2 verification/repair succeeds, the SFV files are ignored.
In your case, the par2 program must have rejected the files.
Since the subsequent SFV fails too, conclusion: botched post.

Refering to your earlier remark

Disabling SFV checking is an option, but it would be better if the SFV fail was not a hard fail and would proceed with par/unrar.

This makes no sense. If you think the result of an SFV check should be ignored, why keep it enabled?
What's a "soft fail" in your opinion?

2) Obviously

BTW: can you email an example NZB to [email protected] ?

[shypike]

Hold on.
I suspect that due to a bug, the SFV check might still be done after a successful verification/repair, at least in some cases.
Like I said before, SFV should not be used when not needed; if they are, consider that to be a bug.

I'll get back to you about this.