No, it did not change!size: function - Did it change?
In the past, I could do things like:
> size:0 folder:
to find 0 byte sized folders.
Or something like:
> childfoldercount:>=0 size:0 parents:2
to find the topmost empty directory trees, at least two levels down.
So if the following were empty:
C:\tmp
C:\tmp\testing
C:\tmp\testing\1
C:\tmp\testing\2
C:\tmp\testing\1\2\3\4\5\6
the above would return C:\tmp, & with that I would know that anything below C:\tmp was empty - without having to look through \testing\ or \1\ or \2\ or ...\6\ (& with exception, which I know).
But now, size: says,
"Search for files with the specified size in bytes."
& with that, directories are no longer returned, so both the above mentioned searches fail to return results.
?
So, what, you're saying I'm going to have to substitute empty: for size: ?
And even if that works out, size: gave greater latitude.
As you could look for "almost" empty.
> childfoldercount:>=0 size:<180 parents:2
where "empty" is allowed to be up to 179 bytes of "nothingness", & empty: means zilch.
Nope, does not work, well, not as I'd want.
That is:
> childfoldercount:>=0 empty: parents:2
does not work, as I'd want, as you could do when size: could also be used with folders.
That will find C:\tmp - only if there is nothing below C:\tmp.
So if C:\tmp\1 exists - even if empty, C:\tmp is no longer "empty" (it contains \1\), so nothing is returned.
Prior, so long as \tmp\ & \1\ (& anything else withing \tmp\) were size:0, C:\tmp\ would be returned.
And I could be fairly confident that there was nothing within C:\tmp\, so I could delete that directory tree - without consequence.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6420
The pertinent point is:
viewtopic.php?p=13336#p13336Oh, it's going to require that you 'Index folder size' too!
.