[Request] Enhance Volume Label detection and output in !submissioninfo.txt #631

New Issue

claunia · 2026-01-29T16:19:46Z

claunia commented

2026-01-29 16:19:46 +00:00

Originally created by @PurpleNekoNova on GitHub (Oct 15, 2023).

Originally assigned to: @mnadareski on GitHub.

At the moment MPF appears to prioritize the ISO9660 volume label to output into !submissioninfo.
My suggestion is to output all present volume labels (ISO, Joliet, HFS, UDF, Rock Ridge, etc)

Example:
[T:VOL]
GAMENAME123 (ISO9660)
GameName123 (Joliet)
GameName12345 (HFS)
GameNameABCD (UDF)
...

Originally created by @PurpleNekoNova on GitHub (Oct 15, 2023). Originally assigned to: @mnadareski on GitHub. At the moment MPF appears to prioritize the ISO9660 volume label to output into !submissioninfo. My suggestion is to output all present volume labels (ISO, Joliet, HFS, UDF, Rock Ridge, etc) Example: [T:VOL] GAMENAME123 (ISO9660) GameName123 (Joliet) GameName12345 (HFS) GameNameABCD (UDF) ...

claunia added the enhancement label 2026-01-29 16:19:46 +00:00

claunia closed this issue

2026-01-29 16:19:46 +00:00

claunia commented

2026-01-29 16:19:47 +00:00

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023):

I believe that I would need a [T:VOL] for every line given that it's not typically a multi-line field, similar to things like alternative titles.

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023): I believe that I would need a `[T:VOL]` for every line given that it's not typically a multi-line field, similar to things like alternative titles.

claunia commented

2026-01-29 16:19:47 +00:00

@sadikyo commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023):

We should discuss as staff just to make sure we want all that before seeing it on every submission. I'm not saying for certain it won't be included, just that it should be discussed.

@sadikyo commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023): We should discuss as staff just to make sure we want all that before seeing it on every submission. I'm not saying for certain it won't be included, just that it should be discussed.

claunia commented

2026-01-29 16:19:47 +00:00

@PurpleNekoNova commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023):

We could do away with the [T:VOL] tag and use custom tags:

<b>Volume Label (ISO)</b>:
<b>Volume Label (HFS)</b>:
<b>Volume Label (UDF)</b>:

...

So we're at least not reusing tags, at it'll look cleaner.

@PurpleNekoNova commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023): We could do away with the [T:VOL] tag and use custom tags: ``` Volume Label (ISO): Volume Label (HFS): Volume Label (UDF): ``` ... So we're at least not reusing tags, at it'll look cleaner.

claunia commented

2026-01-29 16:19:47 +00:00

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023):

Pseudo-tags make me sad.

@mnadareski commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023): Pseudo-tags make me sad.

claunia commented

2026-01-29 16:19:47 +00:00

@Deterous commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2024):

MPF currently gets whatever volume label Windows sees (typically the ISO9660 label as you mentioned, but sometimes UDF). MPF is not privy to the volume type for this label.
MPF directly reading volume labels from disc is likely out of scope, instead will be limited to whatever labels are available in the dumping program's logs.
As far as I can tell, DIC logs provide the ISO9660 and Joliet volume labels, Redumper logs currently have only the ISO9660 label, and I haven't looked into Aaru.

So the best that can be done so far is DIC outputting the Joliet volume label as well as the existing ISO9660 one. Also, if Windows sees a UDF label that differs from ISO9660 label, then MPF could output the ISO9660 label to the submission info. The work for this would mean it should be easy to add other label types if dumping programs support them in the future.

@Deterous commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2024): MPF currently gets whatever volume label Windows sees (typically the ISO9660 label as you mentioned, but sometimes UDF). MPF is not privy to the volume type for this label. MPF directly reading volume labels from disc is likely out of scope, instead will be limited to whatever labels are available in the dumping program's logs. As far as I can tell, DIC logs provide the ISO9660 and Joliet volume labels, Redumper logs currently have only the ISO9660 label, and I haven't looked into Aaru. So the best that can be done so far is DIC outputting the Joliet volume label as well as the existing ISO9660 one. Also, if Windows sees a UDF label that differs from ISO9660 label, then MPF could output the ISO9660 label to the submission info. The work for this would mean it should be easy to add other label types if dumping programs support them in the future.

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SabreTools/MPF#631