Two faults in how a package's folder is named, both of which put unrelated
files in one directory on the delivery volume.
The default layout had no {showId}, so every show's episode 101 resolved to
{deliveryRoot}/101/{packageName}. The token existed and was populated — it
just never appeared in the path. With hardlinked packages that means two
shows delivering the same episode number on the same day write into the same
folder, and identically named shots overwrite each other. reviewDir had the
same hole, and is worse there: reviewNameFor scopes its lookup by projectId,
so a second show computes the bare base name and lands on the first show's
folder instead of suffixing past it.
createDeliveryPackage also never checked for an existing package of the same
name. packageNameTemplate is date-only and packageNumber is a per-project
counter that is not in the template, so a second delivery on the same day got
an identical name and rootPath and built on top of the first. MOV reviews
already did this correctly, so nextReviewName moves to deliveries.ts as
nextPackageName and both paths share it; the review-side name is kept as an
alias because it reads better at that call site.
Putting {showId} ahead of {episode} exposes an empty segment on non-episodic
shows, so paths go through tidyPath, which collapses it and leaves the UNC
root alone.
Historic packages are unaffected: buildDeliveryJobManifest reads rootPath and
configSnapshot off the record, so only new packages use the new layout. A
project with its own deliveryConfig.layout in the database still overrides
these defaults.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A formal review is shared as a flat, dated folder of the preview MOVs —
{deliveryRoot}/PRODUCER_REVIEWS/20260828_Producer_review, then _02, _03
for further reviews the same day. It reuses the delivery package's
machinery end to end: DeliveryPackage/DeliveryItem, the DELIVERY_BUILD
job, the same claim path and the same hardlink-or-copy builder, with
DeliveryPackage.kind telling the two apart.
Three things separate a review from a delivery:
A review never advances an Export. Reviews happen throughout a shot's
life, long before QC passes it, and the same version is routinely shown
twice — so nothing is marked PACKAGED, and markDelivered() refuses a
review package outright (the button is hidden too).
Selection is by shot, not by export. Shot Status → Bulk Actions → Build
MOV Review Package; the server resolves each shot to its newest export
that actually has a deliveryMovPath, which is not always its newest
export — a shot whose latest version is still rendering belongs in the
review as the version that can be watched. Shots with no MOV at all are
listed in the confirm dialog with the reason rather than silently
shrinking the folder.
The folder is exactly the MOVs. No CSV, no manifest.json written beside
them; the manifest still returns to the server, so the record of what was
shared is kept without cluttering the share. Names follow the same
client-naming rule as a delivery, so a shot reads identically in a review
folder and in the delivery that follows it.
Verification (DeliveryStage.BuildReviewItem) is proportional as it is for
EXRs, adapted to a single file with no validation-time digest: a hard
link is the source and needs nothing, a copy is checked against its
source by length always and by full hash under "always-hash". A missing
MOV fails the item here — in an EXR delivery the MOV is a viewing copy
beside the real deliverable, but in a review it is the deliverable, and a
review folder quietly one shot short is worse than one that says so.
Worker bumped to 1.6.0 for the new manifest field (DeliveryManifest.Kind).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
twotalesanimation