poboiko added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> anthonyfieroni wrote in app.cpp:76-81 > processNextFile should be called till m_ids ends, why it does not happen, > probably that's why @bruns reject your patch Well, if that happens, something went wrong, and we have to do something. As far as I can see, the options are: 1. Ignore new batch (that would be simply `return`) 2. Ignore old batch (that is done now - committing something that was extracted from the old one if there is any) 3. Try to merge batches and process everything (that would be `m_ids.append(new batch)` and do not create a new transaction). This might require some additional housekeeping though, as we do not want resulting transaction to be larger than `batchSize`. And we probably do not want to do our own splitting here - as it would duplicate work done in the parent `baloo_file` process. However, since ignored batch do not get removed from `ContentIndexingDB`, our parent process `baloo_file` will retry those documents eventually. I believe it should be pretty safe to just drop one of the batches here. > broulik wrote in app.h:50 > It doens't have an EXPORT macro to it, so I suppose not? It's not. It's only used inside `main.cpp` of `baloo_file_extractor`. REPOSITORY R293 Baloo REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D23008 To: poboiko, #baloo, bruns, ngraham Cc: anthonyfieroni, broulik, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, fbampaloukas, domson, ashaposhnikov, michaelh, astippich, spoorun, ngraham, bruns, abrahams
