Measure gets swallowed when creating parts - 3.6.2.548021803
Hello, I eventually observe that measures get swollowed when creating single parts of an arrangement. Once noticed, the situation can be healed by deleting the part and regenerating it. Sadly I do not always notice this effect at once and tend to accuse someone to play wrong notes.
Unfortunately I can't tell a reproducable testcase but can provide an example score. In the Part Posaune 1 measure 34 (eb flat, c) is missing. If I look meticulously, I see that the barline before measure 35 appears slightly thicker.
I hope the example helps finding the glitch.
Edit:
After writing this, I found out, the situation is a lot more complicated. I wanted to attach a snapshot of measure 34 to this posting. So I opened the score again and had to see that measure 34 isn't missing any more. I've attached the measure in question from a previous PDF export, though.
So, I can't even tell if you can see the effect after opening the attached score. Quite mysterious.
OS: Windows 10 (10.0), Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 3.6.2.548021803, revision: 3224f34
Comments
There's no score attached
Sorry, the score did not get attached, but when I edit the original posting, I see the attachement
![edit.JPG]( "edit.JPG")
In reply to Sorry, the score did not get… by SlyDr
Indeed the "Posaune 1" Part seems corrupt, in measure 34
Deleting and regenerating fixes that
You need to tick the Display box in the initial post, or inline/"insert" it, similar how you did for the image (using that "insert" automagically unticks the "Display" box)
In reply to Sorry, the score did not get… by SlyDr
The score apparently is derrived from
https://musescore.com/user/18849811/scores/5873160
Which got last saved using MuseScore 3.3.0. I wonder whether the corruption is in that already?
In reply to The score apparently is… by Jojo-Schmitz
You are right, I've used that score and reduced it to get a low brass trio and did some additional modifications. But as the quirk dissapeared when regenerating the part the complete initial score should likely be correct imho. And I'm sure that I did not reuse any single parts from the original score but generated them from the reduced trio. That points to an effect of the part generation in my view. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In reply to You are right, I've used… by SlyDr
Maybe. Steps to reproduce needed...
In reply to Maybe. Steps to reproduce… by Jojo-Schmitz
I know that I'm not that helpful because I noticed that too late. But I can tell of one or two other scores where there was a single measure missing in an isolated part where the other parts were complete. So, my finding can only serve as some indication. It's quite unlikely that I will notice something like that immediately after it happens. And even though if, as long as a regeneration solves the problem, the testcase will give no reproducibility. Please advice, if it is useless to report something like this in the future, if I can't provide a reasonable testcase.