[Digikam-devel] Re: Weird image rating returned by IO slave?

[Marcel Wiesweg]

> ...from the data it was given.  I've checked the database, and there are no
> ratings greater than 5, and the imageId associated with that rating is
> bogus too.

Did you double check there's not an ioslave from 1.x in use?

To debug this, look at libs/database/imagelister.cpp.
listFaces(), calling listFromIdList(). This happens on the ioslave side, which 
means you need to "make install", ensure all old slaves are dead (happens 
after a few secs), run digikam and look for debug output in your ~/.xsession-
errors file.

As you see, it's a binary protocol, which has very few safety nets, but we 
never had problems. For faces, an extra field is transmitted, (see 
record.binaryFormat) which may be part of the problem here.

> 
> As a temporary work-around, I patched my copy of setRating to set the label
> to ' e r r o r ' if the rating was greater than 5.  I haven't seen this on
> screen once yet, though if I put a breakpoint at this line it's definitely
> being used.  Does a similar patch need committing to the SVN? (maybe not
> setting a label at all if it's junk?)

If there is any need for something like qBound(RatingMin, rating, RatingMax), 
then at the very source of the problem, 
QDataStream& operator>>(QDataStream& ds, ImageListerRecord& record)
Still this is curing a single symptom, I would prefer to analyze and prevent 
the whole problem.

Marcel