Hello, thanks for all the good support.
I use xBench often at work, and it’s very useful to use QA reports to compare old and new versions of a single project (since changes appear as Inconsistency in Target).
However, I observed that there is no evident pattern at which file’s segments appears first for each of the items caught by the xBench.
For an easier explanation, suppose that I am running files named “Edited version” and “Old version”. Both have identical sources since they have been extracted from the same file, only that the old version was extracted first before we started post-translation work for the purpose of comparison before and after review/editing.
We would run the QA check, works fine and all of the edited segments appear well.
But in the results, sometimes the segments of the Edited version appear before the ones in the Original (as we would like), and sometimes vice-versa (which we don’t want).
But the issue is that the display order does not affect results only - it affects how the segments appear in the exported QA results, and especially, how the report shows the edited history, like the example in the image.
Ideally we want the edited history showing the Edited version as the final, current translation - its segments being in green rows and the edited history showing the final version in blue text.
But we couldn’t find a consistent way to control which file appears first in the results. We tried editing file names, moving files to a subfolder, etc. - but no method seems to be reliable since what worked for one file didn’t work for another.
If there is a way - even a workaround - to control which file’s segments appear first for each error, could you kindly inform?
Or if no method is possible, at least what pattern xBench uses so that we could try to think of a workaround on our own?
Thank you!
