astippich planned changes to this revision. astippich added a comment.
In D11365#236274 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D11365#236274>, @michaelh wrote: > This patch should be split. > > 1. Test more properties > 2. Change return types of ... > > Also 'fix errors' in the title is misleading because currently kfilemetadata works well. Sure, I can do that if it is not a problem that the new tests do not pass (temporarily). It is probably the best idea to create thorough tests for the way we'd like KFileMetaData/taglib to work, as they are lacking in several ways (and hence created the confusion I have had) . Then we can start fixing the errors. Can we reach a consent how it should behave in the end? e.g. should the result match the valueType in propertyinfo, should there be multiple properties with single strings or stringlists for multiple values? Any other concerns? @mgallien, what's your opinion here? REPOSITORY R286 KFileMetaData REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D11365 To: astippich, #frameworks, #baloo, mgallien, michaelh Cc: michaelh, #frameworks, ashaposhnikov, astippich, spoorun, nicolasfella, ngraham, alexeymin
