@obetz your point about “legitimate” VCs versus “corruption” VCs is well made.
To summarise my excessively long post above the “problem” is the Uuid that I identified in 2 in my post and there will be one of those for the ‘Master’ and one for each VC in the DOP. My testing was done by changing fields in a DOP directly and assessing PL5s reaction. I haven’t tested changing the Uuid of a “legitimate” VC while leaving the [M]aster Uuid intact to see how many VCs I wind up with but I suspect an additional VC for the original VC!?
So if anything happens that results in a mismatch between the Uuids identified in 2 in the database and in the DOP that it finds under the title of (photo-id).DOP PL5 will protect the database entry as [M] and preserve the DOP entry as [1] etc…
Currently there are no options to force input of a DOP that does not match to replace the database entry or a VC to become the [M]aster or the database to “forget” a directory that is already in the database (except by forcing it to forget all directories by abandoning the database).
PS. I am sure the final Uuid is there for a reason but during my tests PL5 did not seem to react when I changed that field (or so it seemed). @sgospodarenko any guidance you can offer us with respect to this topic.
PPS. I used the test output from another test where I had created a VC which was a black and white image. I changed the first Uuid after a ‘Should Process’ and saved it and got a copy of the [M]aster. I then changed the second Uuid after a ‘ShouldProcess’ and saved the edited DOP and got a copy of VC [1].
