No show details - error reading XML

[liteswap]

I just deleted one of my analogue tuners and it seems to have resulted in all the XML/EPG data being no longer displayed.

In the recording service logs I get:

Code:

2009-05-28 02:06:54.031    ERROR    [10]    XMLTV: error reading xml: Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: '1959.radiotimes.com'  Key being added: '1959.radiotimes.com'
2009-05-28 02:06:54.031    ERROR    [10]    XMLTV: error reading xml: Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: '1959.radiotimes.com'  Key being added: '1959.radiotimes.com'

And in Config.exe.log:

Code:

2009-05-28 10:25:52.984    ERROR    [1]    Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: 'TVRecordings'  Key being added: 'TVRecordings'
2009-05-28 10:25:52.984    ERROR    [1]       at System.Collections.Hashtable.Insert(Object key, Object nvalue, Boolean add)
   at System.Collections.Hashtable.Add(Object key, Object value)
   at GBPVR.Backend.Common.xc4f12ec3a8a4c96b.xd1ccdef346e6a297(Boolean x8bae2a88590d8cc0)
2009-05-28 10:26:38.297    ERROR    [6]    XMLTV: error reading xml: Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: '1959.radiotimes.com'  Key being added: '1959.radiotimes.com'

I've emptied the EPG and re-filled it via Config but to no avail. Thoughts as to a fix, please? Thanks.

Logs:
--
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

[sub]

It sounds like you've got two channels with the same name in your xmltv file.

[liteswap]

Thanks sub. The answer was of course staring me in the face. I use Alan Birtles' XMLTV GUI to populate my EPG - and I spotted that one of his post-processors generates a '+1' channel listing from the existing data.

I thought that sounded like a neat idea, and failed to switch off the retrieval of all the downloadable '+1' channel listings - hence the duplication. So, my fault.

But would it not be better if the routine that parses the XML were able to deal with unintended duplicates more gracefully than simply refusing to load the whole thing? Maybe an error message? Maybe accept the first instance and ignore subsequent instances? Just a thought...