Skip to content

ADIF file monitor and settings UI#992

Open
aa5sh wants to merge 1 commit intofoldynl:masterfrom
aa5sh:MonitorADIFFiles
Open

ADIF file monitor and settings UI#992
aa5sh wants to merge 1 commit intofoldynl:masterfrom
aa5sh:MonitorADIFFiles

Conversation

@aa5sh
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@aa5sh aa5sh commented Apr 3, 2026

Users can configure up to 4 ADIF file slots, each independently set to import on application startup or shutdown. This is aimed at workflows like WSJT-X where a log file is continuously written externally and needs to be synced into QLog. #941

image

If any contacts are imported a summary like this will appear for each file:
image

Users can configure up to 4 ADIF file slots, each independently set to import on application startup or shutdown. This is aimed at workflows like WSJT-X where a log file is continuously written externally and needs to be synced into QLog.
@foldynl
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

foldynl commented Apr 10, 2026

This issue keeps popping up over and over again. The problem with this approach is:

  1. Doing more work at startup is already becoming a bigger and bigger issue. Users are already complaining about POTA/SOTA... updates, and this PR would make it worse - especially if we allow ADIF uploads, since the entire file would need to be read every time.

  2. I don’t want to trigger any actions on shutdown. There are already a lot of asynchronous operations happening, and do we really want users waiting for an export again when they exit?

I’ve considered redesigning the whole initial loading process several times. The core limitation is the SQLite database. It simply doesn’t support parallel access. So if you process something during startup, you block the main GUI thread, which is a problem. If we had a different database backend, then it might be worth reconsidering.

@aa5sh
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

aa5sh commented Apr 10, 2026

Yeah I struggled with this as well. I did have it set up with a delayed run kicking off with a timer but with a large file it acted poorly. This was an option that wasn't a lot of work but I was worried about the performance hit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants