Replies: 3 comments
-
|
I can see the value in this, especially for admins who use exclusions as a cleanup tool rather than a permanent "never download again" list. There are definitely cases where a title was previously removed and excluded automatically, but a new request comes in later from a user who genuinely wants access to it again. In those situations, having to manually jump into Sonarr/Radarr, find the exclusion entry, remove it, and then approve the request adds extra friction. A possible approach could be:
This preserves the safety of exclusions for users who rely on them while giving administrators a convenient override when they intentionally want to re-download previously excluded content. Seems like a reasonable quality-of-life feature for self-hosters who frequently cycle content in and out of their libraries. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That sounds fantastic! 👍
Thanks!
…On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 04:38 Advait Kawale ***@***.***> wrote:
I can see the value in this, especially for admins who use exclusions as a
cleanup tool rather than a permanent "never download again" list.
There are definitely cases where a title was previously removed and
excluded automatically, but a new request comes in later from a user who
genuinely wants access to it again. In those situations, having to manually
jump into Sonarr/Radarr, find the exclusion entry, remove it, and then
approve the request adds extra friction.
A possible approach could be:
- Keep the current behavior as the default.
- Add an optional *"Bypass ARR exclusions on approval"* setting
(global or per-request).
- When enabled, Seerr would attempt to remove the exclusion before
sending the request to Sonarr/Radarr.
- If removal fails, surface a clear error message to the admin.
This preserves the safety of exclusions for users who rely on them while
giving administrators a convenient override when they intentionally want to
re-download previously excluded content.
Seems like a reasonable quality-of-life feature for self-hosters who
frequently cycle content in and out of their libraries.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2940?email_source=notifications&email_token=BDZVPHWLN3Q4ACFLZCNS5GD5BI6ZXA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCNZUGA2DMMZTUZZGKYLTN5XKMYLVORUG64VFMV3GK3TUVRTG633UMVZF6Y3MNFRWW#discussioncomment-17404633>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BDZVPHX63R6SWQCLMBVHDAD5BI6ZXAVCNFSNUABHKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHM2DMNZYGU3DIMBYHNCGS43DOVZXG2LPNY5TSOJTHE2DINVBOYBA>
.
Triage notifications, keep track of coding agent tasks and review pull
requests on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://github.com/notifications/mobile/ios/BDZVPHVOG4UN77AAHICRSS35BI6ZXA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCNZUGA2DMMZTUZZGKYLTN5XKMYLVORUG64VFMV3GK3TUVJTG633UMVZF62LPOM>
and Android
<https://github.com/notifications/mobile/android/BDZVPHVOEPGBCULFBMEKKM35BI6ZXA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCNZUGA2DMMZTUZZGKYLTN5XKMYLVORUG64VFMV3GK3TUVZTG633UMVZF6YLOMRZG62LE>.
Download it today!
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You're welcome! Glad I could help. 😊 If you have any other questions, ideas, or feature suggestions in the future, feel free to reach out. And if you'd like to keep up with my contributions and discussions, please consider following me on GitHub. I'd really appreciate it! Thanks, and happy self-hosting! 🚀 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Something I'd like extra control over. On pending requests, more often than not (for me) a pending request comes in for an item that was previously available and deleted with 'exclusion' through arr. Would it be possible to "bypass" the arr exclusion list when 'approving' pending requests? That would be stellar I think.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions