[digiKam-users] database pointed at subset of same files in rearranged folders

[Ty Mayn]

 Yes I find that digikam is designed for this bias toward retention of data.
A new user has to discover behavior the behavior which is understood second
nature to experience.  So I see that disconnected network locations (and
obscured,moved,or even deleted files and folders in my testing) do not
trigger any destruction of database records.
This tiny explicit info is not obvious in support materials.
     I am now still on guard to the ways that records do become lost
unintentially during file system rearrangements.
     Am i correct to think that the only actual deletion of a database
record (ever) is under Maintenance>PerformDatabaseCleansing?   In this case
I am also wary to not have a casual check sitting in the box
"WholeAlbumsCollection"  when needing to cleanse just one collection.
    Let me clarify the meaning of "scan" also and be sure that a scan does
not lose database records ..... is it fair to say it can only add
records??  Scan is one of those broad terms like synchronize when one must
ask "which direction" "two way or one way" or  what is the input template
and what is the output event.
      Is it fair to say that under Maintenance >"scan for new items"
depends on the matchmaking features of digikam and it is a one way additive
synchronization in which the database is only added to with NO records ever
being removed.  The Maintenance graphic/text menu has lots of white space
to make this explicit for users. Generally menu screen space is often an
underused teaching and documentation tool.
    Adding a collection is an action with  special features in which a new
collection can incorporate one or more unused records transferred from
former regions of the database (via a matchmaking protocol). The new region
defining the new collection however is not the carrier for unused records
which do not qualify for inclusion.I will call my programming an infancy
unchanged from a lifetime ago, so  I dont know how to name and answer
question by reviewing code,
Empirically the database seems to be managed so that once a record is in it
stays in until manually cleansed.  A rescan for new images in a collection
at least does a matchmaking against the records which define that
collection.  But the process setting up a new collection is intriguing.  It
seems  a new collection searches out a new template of file and folder
patterns but matches file fingerprints against existing records that can
reside in other collections (or at least records that are unused and not
assigned to other collections). A future question for study is whether by
fingerprint 2 collections can carry the same image item and associated
metadata (nonembedded)

Experienced users might  point out to me how I am off on an imaginary limb
or some may provide the words that shows me how the limb is rightly
described and a logical part of the whole tree and I will continue climbing
with confidence.
Ty



On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 2:40 AM Remco Viëtor <remco.vietor at wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> On vendredi 22 février 2019 23:49:25 CET Ty Mayn wrote:
> (...)
> >     I have seen preservation behavior even where an old collection is
> > hidden by renaming, then unloaded, then replaced by loading a different
> > collection with absent files, then pointing to a new pattern of folders
> and
> > files that returns the missing files for inclusion ( rearranged folders).
> (...)
> Collections on a network or removable drive can be temporarily unavailable
> (through accident or design). Throwing away the database records for such
> collections would be, let's say, unfortunate, especially when it concerns
> raw
> files (which do not contain user-added keywords, captions etc.)
>
> Remco
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20190223/bf37a099/attachment.html>