Stop need for double write-back

DigPeter · January 26, 2015, 12:53:15 PM

[ADMIN- this thread moved from Feature Requests]

Please redesign write back to eliminate need for 2nd write-back in all circumstances.

There has been continuing discussion over a long period about this. The most recent can be found in this archived bug report:

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=3550.0 , where Mario's last word is that it is by design with my settings. With respect, I believe that this is a bit quirky: a 2nd write-back is needed when a hierarchichal keyword is deleted, then replaced by another, but only if: 1) the deleted keyword is not saved before assigning the replacement, or 2) the replacement is is assigned before deleting the original keyword. So it is not only caused by my settings, because the 2nd write-back is not needed in all circumstances.

This problem is very irritating, having to wait until the first write-back ends to see whether a second one is needed. With a large of files, this can take a long time.

Mario · January 26, 2015, 01:43:34 PM

I don't think this will be possible.

Depending on the user's choices, his thesaurus, the way he flattens keywords, the contents of the file before the first write-back, there is always the odd change that a second write-back will be needed to flush out the new keywords which have been created during the initial write-back and flatten. This is not a 'problem' that affects many users, too.

DigPeter · January 26, 2015, 04:35:18 PM

Thank you. If 2nd write-back is not needed when steps are taken in one order, why is it needed with a different order? Cannot Imatch check whether a 2nd write-back is needed and do it, if necessary?

Mario · January 26, 2015, 04:39:37 PM

This would add yet another layer on top of an already brain-wobbling complex code path. Given that this affects only a few users and only for some files, I think it may just not be worth the effort to find a solution, implement it and maintain it throughout all upcoming releases.

DigPeter · January 26, 2015, 04:48:49 PM

Hmm ...

DigPeter · January 26, 2015, 04:50:08 PM

@Ferdinand
Thanks for responding to the bug report on this subject. I cannot respond in that thread, because it is archived. I was aware that your approach is similar and it is interesting you do not have this problem. I cannot think what I do that is different. I have auto write-back and keyword refresh disabled and file relations are not currently active, not that I can see that this would affect the issue.

Ferdinand · January 27, 2015, 12:08:03 AM

Well, I can still reply to that thread, even though it's archived, so we could continue to discuss it there. Or I could move it to general discussion, since I'm not convinced that it's a bug, but something to do with your workflow. Or you could create a new general discussion thread entitled "Why am I getting double writebacks"?

DigPeter · January 27, 2015, 03:06:30 PM

Quote from: Ferdinand on January 27, 2015, 12:08:03 AM
Well, I can still reply to that thread, even though it's archived, so we could continue to discuss it there. Or I could move it to general discussion, since I'm not convinced that it's a bug, but something to do with your workflow. Or you could create a new general discussion thread entitled "Why am I getting double writebacks"?

For me there is no reply button in the archived thread - I assume you can still reply as you are an admin. I think in view of the long history of this, discussion has been exhaustive/exhausted. I have a feeling it is more to do with my system. I get other quirky things which others do not. When I have time, I will create a new database and build up from scratch and see if/when the problems occur.

Ferdinand · January 27, 2015, 11:20:24 PM

I'll move this thread to general discussion, since that's what it is.

My suggestion would be to create a new test database. Set the metadata options the same. Import a few images and also your thesaurus. I think you'll find that you don't get a double writeback. Either way, it's going to be easier to track what's going on.

I've forgotten some of your set-up - do you have any sort of propagation configured?

DigPeter · January 28, 2015, 12:52:52 PM

Quote from: Ferdinand on January 27, 2015, 11:20:24 PM
I'll move this thread to general discussion, since that's what it is.

My suggestion would be to create a new test database. Set the metadata options the same. Import a few images and also your thesaurus. I think you'll find that you don't get a double writeback. Either way, it's going to be easier to track what's going on.

I've forgotten some of your set-up - do you have any sort of propagation configured?

Thanks. I have versioning switched off at present, but double write-back occurs whether it is on or off. I do not use a template for initial loading of metadata, as this is done in Downloader Pro, which I use for uploading images from camera.

OT - my work flow does not really require versions. Original raw images are held on a separate drive and I assign keywords in IMatch to them before conversion. My requirements are really quite simple and I do not keep multiple different versions of individual images. The exception is for panoramas, with which I stack the original converted images.

Ferdinand · January 28, 2015, 01:50:08 PM

Is it possible that you're adding something in DLP that causes this? (I use DLP too).

Did you try a fresh sample DB? Shouldn't take long to set up up and import just a few images and your thesaurus.

DigPeter · January 28, 2015, 02:27:17 PM

I do not know - I am tied up at present and will answer more fully in a couple of days, when I have had a chance to set up a new data base.