extra_tags for Discogs-plugin, and extended autotagger candidate information #4926
Replies: 2 comments 5 replies
-
Yes, you would start there and modify the get_albums function to use the extra tags. You may want to check whether the underlying python3-discogs-client library can use extra tags. Looks like it can accept a few additional tags https://www.discogs.com/developers/#page:database,header:database-search |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
1,5 years and I'm back taking a stab at this 😁 Might not be the best place to ask, but I'll go for it anyway. I have tested the discogs_client via cli and done queries like this
Looks quite good. But I am sure there are corner cases that needs to be tackled, like spaces, upper/lower case, etc. Anyway. To get started, much like the autotagger does, i made a dict to map the fields
And then I took a stab at changing the candidates()
And now comes the stupid question, so please bear with me. But how do I go about testing this? Tried following the developer docs and the CONTRIBUTING.rst. So I have a virtual python environment with poetry, poethepoet and I did poetry install. But how do i go about actually building/installing (right terminology?) beets with my changes so I can start testing it? If someone could nudge me in the right direction I would be very happy :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi!
So this is a two-parter.
Musicbrainz got a new configuration option fairly recently, where you can specify
extra_tags
that it will use to match your music. For me this is really helpful because I often have to manually find the realease with the correctcatalognum
andmedia
. So after adding:I've seen a huge improvement in accuracy on the few albums I have imported so far.
Unfortunately for me, well over 50% of my albums are not on musicbrainz, but 99% of the time they are on Discogs. It would be amazing to have this option in the Discogs-plugin aswell. Took a quick look in
discogs.py
and found thisWould this be a good place to start if I want to look into this myself?
The output from the autotagger is sometimes a bit ambiguous when several discogs release look more or less the same (white label vs test pressing vs actual release for instance). Here is in example that actually illustrates the thing I want to solve in both 1. and 2. The autotagger gives equal match to two bandcamp results, aswell as two discogs results.
In this scenario I know that I want to pick one of the Discogs candidates because they in my opinion have better metadata. But candidate 4 and 5 does not appear different. But the difference is:
Candidate 3: [r74882] (Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM)
Canditate 4: [r4383728] (Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM, White Label)
So i wonder how hard it would be to customize the output of this string
(Discogs, Vinyl, 1996, UK, Robs Records, 12ROB49)
so it uses the entire
Format
and looks something like this:(Discogs, Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM, White Label, 1996, UK, Robs Records, 12ROB49)
Happy to look into this myself, but would be very grateful if someone could nudge me in the right direction as this is a bit outside my comfort-zone.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions