Yes, I see that bug. I linked to it in my original comment, and I also think I quoted the exact comment that you were referring to in your last comment. So please, before you begin another message with “Once again,” please hear me out because I’m trying to say why I don’t think what I’m asking was covered over there.
Over there, your answer was that the plan is for Obsidian to use only the file name in links when there’s no ambiguity. The folder is only to be added when there is ambiguity. The particular ambiguity is when there are files in different folders having the same name. Have I understood?
Here, the files I recorded in my demonstration have universally unique names (no other file in any folder has the same name). So, there is no ambiguity. Therefore, your answer over there does not address what is happening in my demonstration here.
Keep reading, please!
“But SquareBottle,” you’re probably thinking, “what I’m saying over there is that files with universally unique names won’t have the folder name added when 0.7 comes out. So, your issue goes away. Therefore, it does cover what’s happening here.”
So then, why am I still going on?
Over there, the person was surprised when a folder appeared at all. That’s why you explained the design decision. In other words, the perceived inconsistency of that thread was “Sometimes folder names are part of the links and sometimes they aren’t.” I agree that you cleared that up by explaining how it’s consistent with a conditional rule (use short file name when unique, use full file path when ambiguous).
Here, my surprise was that two files that seem to have the same relevant traits (namely, they both have universally unique names) are being treated differently. The perceived inconsistency is that the conditional rule that you described is not being applied according to the condition you defined. That you said that there is no inconsistency makes me think that you are overlooking this. What I recorded is inconsistent with the conditional rule.
“Okay, so it’s an inconsistency,” perhaps you are willing to concede, if only to satisfy me. (If not for even that, then for the purpose of the narrative I’m using. Please forgive me.) “Nothing else from my reply changes, SquareBottle. When we finish implementing the conditional rule in 0.7 as described in the other thread, your problem should disappear. So we’re done here.”
No, we aren’t! That doesn’t explain the other inconsistency captured in my demonstration: why the full file path was used for one file but not the other. The first inconsistency is about the conditional rule. This one is about how two files with the same properties but different file names are being treated differently. They should currently be treated the same – even though that means they “should” currently both be inconsistent with the conditional rule. Do you see the distinction now?
If not, then here’s my last try:
Imagine some robots are dancing to the beat of a song. The desired behavior is that they both clap to the beat’s fourth notes, so it’s expected that the claps will be evenly spaced (1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4).
One day, a boy notices that the robots seem to be clapping twice on each beat (1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4), they occasionally miss a beat, and one is snapping instead of clapping. The boy asks the seasoned robot maker about it, thinking it’s a malfunction for them to be clapping twice.
The robot builder replies, “No, I want them to clap once on the same beat for slow songs and twice on the same beat for fast songs. Pretty great, right? I need to tweak a few things because they miss beats now and then. I’ve already found the problem though, so come back tomorrow and they’ll get the rhythm right.”
“Okay! Yeah, that is great!” says the boy excitedly. “But why is that one snapping?”
“Like I said, come back tomorrow and they’ll clap on beat according to the rule about slow and fast songs,” replies the older man patiently.
“I get that. Or at least I think I do. But why is only one of them snapping? If they both have the same code, shouldn’t both or neither be snapping? I know it’s the same rhythm, but does that matter for this question?” asks the boy. He knows the robot builder said “they’ll clap on beat” tomorrow, and if that is entirely true, then there will be no more snapping. But from the context, he thinks the old man is focused on the rhythm and not on the question he actually asked: why is one robot snapping?
If you still believe that your replies (here and in the other thread) already answered my questions, then I will assume that you are correct and that I’m just misunderstanding or overlooking something. I will take up no more of your time if that’s the case. Thank you for considering.