-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow queueing the same song multiple times #64
Comments
I think it would be nice to ask the user if they really want to add the duplicate to the listening queue (answer could be remembered), because the action sometimes could be done accidentally. |
Is there another way to add songs to the queue besides long pressing it to select, then pressing the three dots and then selecting add to queue? Because I don't really see how this control flow would be an accident. Or do you mean a case were the user wasn't aware that the song is already queued? |
Yes, I meant that case. |
I never had this situation myself and think it isn't really needed. I see that such an dialogue would make sense for playlists (which don't seem to support duplicated songs as well). But since the queue is something that you interact directly with (in contrasts to playlists), such a mistake is easily recognized and the song can be skipped. Although I'd guess that most users would probably just hear it again since the intent to add it to the queue is clearly linked to the intent to hear the song. I don't have empirical data, but taking other apps as reference here, neither spotify nor samsung music nor youtube music ask about duplicate queue entries. But if a decision for a dialogue is made, the option to don't show it in the future, would be highly appreciated. |
Checklist
Feature description
Currently it is not possible to add the same song to the queue multiple times.
Why do you want this feature?
Sometimes I like to hear a currently playing song another time (maybe after another song played in between, so looping isn't an option).
Additional information
Reason should be this call to
filter
. Would be willing to remove it myself, but wanted to ask for insight, whether there is a technical reason for this.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: