Screenshot numbering is not sequential

asked 2018-11-20 09:54:18 +0200

Direc
5243 ●104 ●149 ●149

updated 2019-04-26 16:45:01 +0200

Hi all,

I was trying to capture a very specific set os ski...screenshots, so I had to remove a bunch of failed ones. I couldn't make sense out of the order they were in the end, and after some testing I found out the following:

1. Take three screenshots
2. Note filenames and dates; _001 is the oldest, _003 the newest
3. Delete screenshots _001 and _003
4. Take another screenshot

Expected outcome (1):

• New screenshot is named _004 because the previously written file was _003
• Screenshots are now named _002 and _004
• Screenshot filename is not reused
• Screenshots are guaranteed to be in ascending order and have unique filenames

Expected outcome (2):

• New screenshot is named _003, because _002 is the newest existing file
• Screenshots are now named _002 and _003
• Screenshot filename is reused
• Screenshots are guaranteed to be in ascending order

Actual outcome:

• New screenshot is named _001, because it's the first free number available for the day
• Screenshots are named _002 and _001
• Screenshot filename is reused
• Screenshots are in mixed order

This makes life in command line challenging, as one can't rely on the fact that a simple ls command would list screenshots in the order they were taken. Another point of view is reusing filenames, which could be easily avoided altogether.

First detected with Sony Xperia XA2 running 3.0.0.8 EA.

Thanks!

(Sidenote: this may or may not affect the camera pictures, too, but I didn't try it our - and it might require its own question anyway.)