fix: fixed reindexing of unchanged files, now uses last_modified stamp

[ErikBjare]

Important

Fix reindexing of unchanged files by using last_modified timestamp in cli.py and improve logging in indexer.py and watcher.py.

• Behavior:
  • Fix reindexing of unchanged files in index() in cli.py by using last_modified timestamp instead of mtime.
  • Compare timestamps rounded to microseconds to determine file changes.
• Logging:
  • Add debug logs in list_documents() and get_all_documents() in indexer.py to log document retrieval details.
  • Add debug logs in _process_updates() in watcher.py to log sorted updates by modification time.
• Misc:
  • Remove mtime metadata handling in cli.py.

^{This description was created by for 50147e7. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 50147e7 in 1 minute and 3 seconds

More details

• Looked at 112 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. gptme_rag/cli.py:113

• Draft comment:
  Avoid using round for timestamp comparison. Directly compare current_mtime and existing_files[abs_source] for better accuracy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The rounding is actually intentional here to handle floating point precision issues when comparing timestamps. File modification times can have slight differences in precision that don't matter functionally. Rounding to microseconds (6 decimal places) is a reasonable approach to avoid false positives from tiny timestamp differences. The comment is suggesting a change that could make the comparison less reliable.
  Maybe there's a more standard way to handle timestamp comparisons in Python that would be better than manual rounding? The comment author might be aware of best practices I'm not familiar with.
  Even if there are other approaches, the current solution using round() is a reasonable and explicit way to handle precision issues. The comment doesn't suggest a better alternative.
  The comment should be deleted because it suggests removing a purposeful precision handling mechanism without providing a better alternative.

Workflow ID: wflow_VCCykzxkOnqzAZG5

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 5.26316% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 50.39%. Comparing base (90ba8c5) to head (50147e7).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gptme_rag/cli.py	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
gptme_rag/indexing/indexer.py	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master       #5      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   50.89%   50.39%   -0.50%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines        1114     1127      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits          567      568       +1     
- Misses        547      559      +12     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.