Bug 411244

Summary:	digiKam should not rewrite the same tag inside images which already have it.
Product:	[Applications] digikam	Reporter:	Wihlelm <wihlelm>
Component:	Tags-Engine	Assignee:	Digikam Developers <digikam-bugs-null>
Status:	REPORTED ---
Severity:	wishlist	CC:	caulier.gilles, m06kr2gf, metzpinguin
Priority:	NOR
Version First Reported In:	6.3.0
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Microsoft Windows
OS:	Microsoft Windows
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Wihlelm 2019-08-24 11:02:00 UTC

SUMMARY

When trying to do a mass tagging of images, Digikam seems to write all images whatever they allready contain the tag or not.

STEPS TO REPRODUCE
1. Select multiple images in the collection (by hand or with any kind of method), some with a tag "tag_example" some without it.
2. Apply (or delete) the tag "tag_example" to all images

OBSERVED RESULT

Digikam writes (deletes) the tag inside images that need it, but also rewrites images that already (do not) have it.

EXPECTED RESULT

Digikam should only writes images that need changes and left others unchanged (they do not need it), particularly during mass changes for speeding up the process.


SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS
Windows: Windows 10
macOS: 
Linux/KDE Plasma: 
(available in About System)
KDE Plasma Version: 
KDE Frameworks Version: 
Qt Version: 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Comment 1 Maik Qualmann 2019-08-25 19:42:28 UTC

The consideration is certainly good, but it's not that easy. We do not know if the user has written the metadata so far. So we would have to read the metadata before writing and see if the tag actually exists. In ALL metadata fields that we would normally write. And that would also take time.

Maik

Comment 2 Wihlelm 2019-08-26 10:03:52 UTC

I thought database could handle informations regarding tags to know if writing is necessary and avoid the reading files process which would, I agree, slow down the process. I am just not confortable with unneeded massing writing. 

Maybe we can turn this into the wishlist instead of a low priority bug ?

Thanks for your attention.

Comment 3 caulier.gilles 2023-05-02 06:09:26 UTC

*** Bug 451524 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***