We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Split from #156. To quote the reasoning there:
When iterating over a project folder, it might be prudent to delete any extracted metadata without a matching loom file. ✔️ pro: automatically cleans up stale cache ✔️ pro: avoids issue of renaming a loom file, later replacing it with another loom file, and the new loom file being stuck with old stale cache ❌ con: does not prevent previous when immediately replacing a loom file. ✔️ Counterargument: this is the kind of "expert mode" renaming where one should realise the cache needs to be updated. Add to documentation? ❌ con: when debugging, I sometimes rename metadata to a backup, then change code, then refresh to see if changes in code reflect changes to cache. ✔️ Counterargument: specific niche debugging scenario, ✔️ Counterargument: different renaming scheme (FILENAME.loom.old_file_md_1.json.gzip instead of FILENAME_old1.loom.file_md.json.gzip) fixes this. ✔️ Counterargument: as an alternate workaround, not auto-cleaning in debug mode will avoid this issue (and is likely useful for debugging anyway) Verdict: should be implemented
When iterating over a project folder, it might be prudent to delete any extracted metadata without a matching loom file.
FILENAME.loom.old_file_md_1.json.gzip
FILENAME_old1.loom.file_md.json.gzip
Verdict: should be implemented
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
JobLeonard
No branches or pull requests
Split from #156. To quote the reasoning there:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: