Trouble with viewing folders in “Batch Add Files”...

[skidog326]

Ok-- Here we go...

** My System Settings **
I'm running Coppermine 1.4.2 on my own desktop (XP Pro) emulating the server side using 'localhost'.

I have MySQL Server 4.1, PHP 5.1 and GD 2 installed and configured in IIS 5.1.

I'm able to install, run, and configure Coppermine fine. 

** The Problem **
I am having trouble loading photos into Coppermine via "Batch Add Files"

1)   In my albums directory, I created a folder "cars"
2)   I dragged & dropped 4 jpg to the "cars"— (ie: photo001.jpg)
3)  When I go to add these files into Coppermine using the "Batch Add Files" I receive this error:

Please select a directory
  /...\albums/

"There are no folders inside the "albums" folder yet. Make sure to create at least one custom folder within "albums" folder and ftp-upload your files there. You mustn't upload to the "userpics" nor "edit" folders, they are reserved for http uploads and internal purposes."

Note:  I'm able to upload photos via the Coppermine http interface

Thank you for ur help!!

---
** Debug Info **
USER:
------------------
Array
(
    [ID] => a03c657aded9f27da926fc25c6f5b0cd
    [am] => 1
    [lang] => english
)

==========================
USER DATA:
------------------
Array
(
    [user_id] => 1
    [user_name] => Jeff
    [groups] => Array
        (
           
=> 1
        )

    [disk_max] => 0
    [disk_min] => 0
    [can_rate_pictures] => 1
    [can_send_ecards] => 1
    [ufc_max] => 3
    [ufc_min] => 3
    [custom_user_upload] => 0
    [num_file_upload] => 5
    [num_URI_upload] => 3
    [can_post_comments] => 1
    [can_upload_pictures] => 1
    [can_create_albums] => 1
    [has_admin_access] => 1
    [pub_upl_need_approval] => 0
    [priv_upl_need_approval] => 0
    [group_name] => Administrators
    [upload_form_config] => 3
    [group_quota] => 0
    [can_see_all_albums] => 1
    [group_id] => 1
)

==========================
Queries:
------------------
Array
(
   
=> SELECT extension, mime, content, player FROM cpg140_filetypes; (0.001s)
    [1] => select * from cpg140_plugins order by priority asc; (0s)
    [2] => delete from `photos`.cpg140_sessions where time<1132947444 and remember=0; (0s)
    [3] => delete from `photos`.cpg140_sessions where time<1131741444; (0s)
    [4] => select user_id from `photos`.cpg140_sessions where session_id=md5("07bd146261914a9a779a3013587aa77e955698a6afad951617e4c76081e6a70f"); (0s)
    [5] => select user_id as id, user_password as password from `photos`.cpg140_users where user_id=1 (0s)
    [6] => SELECT u.user_id AS id, u.user_name AS username, u.user_password AS password, u.user_group+100 AS group_id FROM `photos`.cpg140_users AS u INNER JOIN `photos`.cpg140_usergroups AS g ON u.user_group=g.group_id WHERE u.user_id='1' (0s)
    [7] => SELECT user_group_list FROM `photos`.cpg140_users AS u WHERE user_id='1' and user_group_list <> ''; (0s)
    [8] => SELECT MAX(group_quota) as disk_max, MIN(group_quota) as disk_min, MAX(can_rate_pictures) as can_rate_pictures, MAX(can_send_ecards) as can_send_ecards, MAX(upload_form_config) as ufc_max, MIN(upload_form_config) as ufc_min, MAX(custom_user_upload) as custom_user_upload, MAX(num_file_upload) as num_file_upload, MAX(num_URI_upload) as num_URI_upload, MAX(can_post_comments) as can_post_comments, MAX(can_upload_pictures) as can_upload_pictures, MAX(can_create_albums) as can_create_albums, MAX(has_admin_access) as has_admin_access, MIN(pub_upl_need_approval) as pub_upl_need_approval, MIN( priv_upl_need_approval) as  priv_upl_need_approval FROM cpg140_usergroups WHERE group_id in (1) (0.001s)
    [9] => SELECT group_name FROM  cpg140_usergroups WHERE group_id= 1 (0s)
    [10] => update `photos`.cpg140_sessions set time='1132951044' where session_id=md5('07bd146261914a9a779a3013587aa77e955698a6afad951617e4c76081e6a70f'); (0s)
    [11] => SELECT user_favpics FROM cpg140_favpics WHERE user_id = 1 (0s)
    [12] => DELETE FROM cpg140_banned WHERE expiry < '2005-11-25 12:37:24' (0s)
    [13] => SELECT * FROM cpg140_banned WHERE (ip_addr='127.0.0.1' OR ip_addr='127.0.0.1' OR user_id=1) AND brute_force=0 (0.001s)
    [14] => SELECT aid, title FROM cpg140_albums WHERE 1 (0s)
    [15] => SELECT COUNT(*) FROM cpg140_pictures WHERE approved = 'NO' (0s)
)

==========================
GET :
------------------
Array
(
)

==========================
POST :
------------------
Array
(
)

==========================
VERSION INFO :
------------------
PHP version: 5.1.0 - OK
------------------
mySQL version: 4.1.15-nt
------------------
Coppermine version: 1.4.2(stable)
==========================
Module: GD
------------------
GD Version: bundled (2.0.28 compatible)
FreeType Support: 1
FreeType Linkage: with freetype
T1Lib Support: 1
GIF Read Support: 1
GIF Create Support: 1
JPG Support: 1
PNG Support: 1
WBMP Support: 1
XPM Support:
XBM Support: 1
JIS-mapped Japanese Font Support:

==========================
Module: mysql
------------------
MySQL Supportenabled
Active Persistent Links 0
Active Links 1
Client API version 4.1.7
==========================
Module: zlib
------------------
ZLib Support enabled
Stream Wrapper support compress.zlib://
Stream Filter support zlib.inflate, zlib.deflate
Compiled Version 1.2.3
Linked Version 1.2.3
==========================
Server restrictions (safe mode)?
------------------
Directive | Local Value | Master Value
safe_mode | Off | Off
safe_mode_exec_dir | no value | no value
safe_mode_gid | Off | Off
safe_mode_include_dir | no value | no value
safe_mode_exec_dir | no value | no value
sql.safe_mode | Off | Off
disable_functions | no value | no value
file_uploads | On | On
include_path | .;C:\php5\pear | .;C:\php5\pear
open_basedir | no value | no value
==========================
email
------------------
Directive | Local Value | Master Value
sendmail_from | me@localhost.com | me@localhost.com
sendmail_path | no value | no value
SMTP | localhost | localhost
smtp_port | 25 | 25
==========================
Size and Time
------------------
Directive | Local Value | Master Value
max_execution_time | 30 | 30
max_input_time | 60 | 60
upload_max_filesize | 2M | 2M
post_max_size | 8M | 8M
==========================
Page generated in 0.144 seconds - 16 queries in 0.003 seconds - Album set : ; Meta set: ;

[artistsinhawaii]

Looks like you forgot to create an "album" in your gallery. (as opposed to your directory)

Click on the ALBUMS admin menu button and create an album.
Then try the batch add function again.

Dennis

[whmeeske]

Looks like you forgot to create an "album" in your gallery. (as opposed to your directory)

Click on the ALBUMS admin menu button and create an album.
Then try the batch add function again.

I have exactly the same problem and the solution mentioned above doesn't make any sense to me.
I upgraded from 1.3.4 to 1.4.2. In my 1.3.4. CPG I had a directory structure under 'albums' where I put my files I want to add in the gallery (in which are many albums).
This worked fine.
But in 1.4.2 I have the same directory structure with the same files and now I can only batch-add files with the classic CPG function and NOT with the new explorer interface.
This is the same problem the topic-starter has. And the album-list in CPG has NOTHING to do with the directory 'albums' and its structure.

The question is : how can we get the new explorer interface (batch-add) to work?

[Joachim Müller]

post a deep link to one of the files that are suppossed to turn up on the batch-add screen but don't

[whmeeske]

post a deep link to one of the files that are suppossed to turn up on the batch-add screen but don't

Ehh, what is a deep link and how do I make one?

In my batch-add window I noticed something, but maybe it's not relevant:
The directory is shown as "...\www\cpg142\albums/". I'm not sure if the part "\albums/" is correct, should it be "\albums\"?

[Joachim Müller]

http://yoursite.tld/your_coppermine_folder/albums/my_custom_folder/the_file.jpg would be a deep link 

[whmeeske]

post a deep link to one of the files that are suppossed to turn up on the batch-add screen but don't

OK, here it is:
http://www.whmeeske.nl\anne\fotoalbum\albums\upload\2005\ameland\DSCF1022.JPG

What can you see with a deep link?
The structure of my upload directory mirrors my category and album structure in CPG.

[Joachim Müller]

What can you see with a deep link?

I can see three things:

• you appear to be confused about the usage of forward and backward slashes: on the internet, you use forward slashes only, so the correct link would be http://www.whmeeske.nl/anne/fotoalbum/albums/upload/2005/ameland/dscf1022.jpg
  
• you seem not to keep in mind that upper/lower case does matter, even if you're hosted on a Windows box: DSCF1022.JPG doesn't equal dscf1022.jpg
  
• Your server seems to be configured "exotically", so I recommend using the classic batch-add interface instead of the new, browsable one.

[whmeeske]

I can see three things:

• you appear to be confused about the usage of forward and backward slashes: on the internet, you use forward slashes only, so the correct link would be http://www.whmeeske.nl/anne/fotoalbum/albums/upload/2005/ameland/dscf1022.jpg
  
• you seem not to keep in mind that upper/lower case does matter, even if you're hosted on a Windows box: DSCF1022.JPG doesn't equal dscf1022.jpg
  
• Your server seems to be configured "exotically", so I recommend using the classic batch-add interface instead of the new, browsable one.

• I agree on the use of the slashes, but in this case I don't see a difference. Both mine and your corrected link presents the same picture.
• The same for the use of upper/lower case.
• What do you mean with "exotically"? My server is a PC at home with Windows 2000, Apache 2.0.49, PHP 4.3.11 and MySQL 4.0.18

[Joachim Müller]

I agree on the use of the slashes, but in this case I don't see a difference. Both mine and your corrected link presents the same picture.

No, they don't - clicking on your above link in FF results in an error. Just because it works for you, it doesn't necesarily work for everyone. That's what standards are for - they're suppossed to make sure things work for everyone. I find it strange that you're trying to argue about this instead of saying "I've learnt something, will use slashes only in the future".

The same for the use of upper/lower case.

What makes you so sure? Are you sure your coppermine issues are not related?

What do you mean with "exotically"? My server is a PC at home with Windows 2000, Apache 2.0.49, PHP 4.3.11 and MySQL 4.0.18

Exactly as I thought. That is exotic server setup. I firmly believe that non-pros shouldn't be running their own webserver available publicly. Your OS definitely is not a server OS. Self-hosting is not recommended unless you really, really know what you're doing.

[whmeeske]

No, they don't - clicking on your above link in FF results in an error. Just because it works for you, it doesn't necesarily work for everyone. That's what standards are for - they're suppossed to make sure things work for everyone. I find it strange that you're trying to argue about this instead of saying "I've learnt something, will use slashes only in the future".
What makes you so sure? Are you sure your coppermine issues are not related?
Exactly as I thought. That is exotic server setup. I firmly believe that non-pros shouldn't be running their own webserver available publicly. Your OS definitely is not a server OS. Self-hosting is not recommended unless you really, really know what you're doing.

But it works for me...end of story.

[Tranz]

But it works for me...end of story.

I guess if we shared your philosophy... doesn't work for us... end of support.

[ecto]

• I agree on the use of the slashes, but in this case I don't see a difference. Both mine and your corrected link presents the same picture.

whmeeske, just like GauGau said, on the internet you use forward-slashes. If you look more closely at the address field after clicking the link with backslashes, you will see that the browser has been "smart" and converted the backslashes to forward-slashes. This doesn't mean that backslashes works, it means that the browser has a workaround for badly written addresses.

This is what IE and Opera do, but FF doesn't. IMO, FF got it right, making people learn to write correct addresses instead of luring people in false belief that they have done things correctly.

And so to the original problem.. did it work for you when turning the browsable interface off?

[whmeeske]

whmeeske, just like GauGau said, on the internet you use forward-slashes. If you look more closely at the address field after clicking the link with backslashes, you will see that the browser has been "smart" and converted the backslashes to forward-slashes. This doesn't mean that backslashes works, it means that the browser has a workaround for badly written addresses.

This is what IE and Opera do, but FF doesn't. IMO, FF got it right, making people learn to write correct addresses instead of luring people in false belief that they have done things correctly.

And so to the original problem.. did it work for you when turning the browsable interface off?

Not yet, but I intend to. I've installed a separate CPG for testing. I'll let you know the results, OK?

I understand the slash-issue. I've learned that there's a difference between browser I was not aware of.

But I don't understand the negative discussion about my server. I'm having it for my own website, so that I'm not stuck with website-space and. I'm using CPG on my website so that family, relatives and others can see how we are doing.
I'm asking some questions from time to time, just to learn better how CPG works. This helps a lot. And does it matter on what server I'm running it? I don't think so, but some people on this forum do...

[Tranz]

Well, it might not seem like it, but they do it because they care. People who don't know what they're doing are very likely to have their servers hacked, or worse. Even servers run by professionals 24/7/365 can have issues. Because of the vigilance, they can handle issues more quickly. Since you can't be monitoring your computer 24/7/365, well, you could wake up to a very bad morning.

[Joachim Müller]

Securing a regular operating system that is known to have unfixed flaws is hard to accomplish already. Exposing it on the internet by "abusing" your desktop PC as webserver is - as Thu suggested - the same as giving every wannabe-hacker (script-kiddie, that is) a warm welcome at the doorstep.
Good webhosts use Linux/Unix-based operating systems just because they are more reliable and less likely to be exploited, and they even strip every possible extra loophole. You on the other side use a desktop operating system that has a lot of vulnerabilities. Fixing every possible hole in it is a hard task already that requires in-depth knowledge of Windows, your webserver, the way the internet works (you should e.g. know everything about ports and services). Keeping it up-to-date needs more than enabling Windows-Update and a virus scanner - it's a fulltime job. In "real-life", I'm a network admin, especially responsible for the intranet and web services in the company I work for. Yet, I wouldn't dare to run a Windows box at home as a webserver - it would be just too time-consuming to maintain it.

There are often home users running a webserver publicly who say: "I'm not afraid that my server might get hacked. If someone breaks it, I'll set it up from scratch in no time". But this is an illusion - you can be happy if only a script kiddie is breaking into your site, bringing it down or defacing it. There are worse things that can happen easily: your server might be taken over by someone, using it to send millions of spam emails or distribute illegal material (warez, porn, you-name-it). Running your own webserver is asking for trouble (unless you would like to be charged for distributing child-porn).

Just ask yourself a question: do you know what a root-kit is and how to protect yourself from it? If the answer is "no" (and you're of course suppossed to answer without googling first), then I recommend you find a decent webhosting package asap and disable your apache daemon right now.

I hope you understand that I'm not posting this to make you look bad - I'm concerned both for your security as well as mine.

Joachim

[Joachim Müller]

I can see little point in ranting all over the board about our suggestions not to run your own server. You appear not to be too happy about us telling you the truth about self-hosting, which is ignorance in my eyes.

[whmeeske]

I've searched on the internet and found ClarkConnect, a Linux-based all-in-one solution.
Maybe that's something worth to try on my own server? It has a non-CPG image gallery, but I want to keep using CPG. I don't know if CPG can be installed on such a system.
I intend to keep using my own server, because I'll have to pay too much for webhosting, the size of my www-dir is already > 100 MB.

[kegobeer]

I intend to keep using my own server, because I'll have to pay too much for webhosting, the size of my www-dir is already > 100 MB.

I pay $60 per year for 500 MB and 5 GB transfer/month.  My hosting company is top notch - the best support and uptime I've ever had.

[ecto]

But in 1.4.2 I have the same directory structure with the same files and now I can only batch-add files with the classic CPG function and NOT with the new explorer interface.
This is the same problem the topic-starter has. And the album-list in CPG has NOTHING to do with the directory 'albums' and its structure.

The question is : how can we get the new explorer interface (batch-add) to work?

I'll quote GauGau's response from the thread he linked to above, just so people who read this thread will have an actual answer and we'll avoid further questions about why the new browsable batch-add interface doesn't work on some setups:

"the reason is that on some setups (all of them on Windows boxes), some server-sided vars don't get populated properly."

To the devs: I looked for this in all the docs, and found that the only place it's mentioned is in the "Known issues" section in the docs. I believe that more of these kind of threads could be avoided if you wrote something about this in the upload section of both the documentation and the README.