### What problem does this PR solve?
Fixes#15117.
Chunk images are stored with `img_id = f"{bucket}-{objname}"` in
`image2id()` (`rag/utils/base64_image.py`). When loading via
`id2image()`, the code used `image_id.split("-")` and required exactly
two segments. Object keys that contain hyphens (e.g. `page-1.jpg`)
produce more than two segments, so `id2image` returns `None` and chunk
image previews fail even though the blob exists.
This is the same parsing issue as #15115 (HTTP thumbnail route); this PR
fixes the indexing/retrieval path.
### Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Documentation Update
- [ ] Refactoring
- [ ] Performance Improvement
- [ ] Other (please describe):
### Test plan
- [x] `pytest test/unit_test/rag/utils/test_base64_image.py`
- [ ] Manual: index a chunk with an `objname` containing hyphens and
confirm `img_id` resolves to an image in retrieval
Fixes#15117.
### What problem does this PR solve?
1. Break huge function into smaller pieces
2. Add unit test for the smaller pieces function
3. Layer-ed design
a. infra layer - task_context.py, recording_context.py,
write_operation_interceptor.py, ...
b. service layer - *_service.py
c. business layer - task_handler.py
4. Default behavior: use "refactor-ed version" - can switch to original
version by change env variable
### Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] Refactoring
- [x] Performance Improvement
---------
Co-authored-by: Liu An <asiro@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: Zhichang Yu <yuzhichang@gmail.com>
### What problem does this PR solve?
Properly close detached PIL image on JPEG save failure in encode_image.
### Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
**Summary**
This PR tackles a significant memory bottleneck when processing
image-heavy Word documents. Previously, our pipeline eagerly decoded
DOCX images into `PIL.Image` objects, which caused high peak memory
usage. To solve this, I've introduced a **lazy-loading approach**:
images are now stored as raw blobs and only decoded exactly when and
where they are consumed.
This successfully reduces the memory footprint while keeping the parsing
output completely identical to before.
**What's Changed**
Instead of a dry file-by-file list, here is the logical breakdown of the
updates:
* **The Core Abstraction (`lazy_image.py`)**: Introduced `LazyDocxImage`
along with helper APIs to handle lazy decoding, image-type checks, and
NumPy compatibility. It also supports `.close()` and detached PIL access
to ensure safe lifecycle management and prevent memory leaks.
* **Pipeline Integration (`naive.py`, `figure_parser.py`, etc.)**:
Updated the general DOCX picture extraction to return these new lazy
images. Downstream consumers (like the figure/VLM flow and base64
encoding paths) now decode images right at the use site using detached
PIL instances, avoiding shared-instance side effects.
* **Compatibility Hooks (`operators.py`, `book.py`, etc.)**: Added
necessary compatibility conversions so these lazy images flow smoothly
through existing merging, filtering, and presentation steps without
breaking.
**Scope & What is Intentionally Left Out**
To keep this PR focused, I have restricted these changes strictly to the
**general Word pipeline** and its downstream consumers.
The `QA` and `manual` Word parsing pipelines are explicitly **not
modified** in this PR. They can be safely migrated to this new lazy-load
model in a subsequent, standalone PR.
**Design Considerations**
I briefly considered adding image compression during processing, but
decided against it to avoid any potential quality degradation in the
derived outputs. I also held off on a massive pipeline re-architecture
to avoid overly invasive changes right now.
**Validation & Testing**
I've tested this to ensure no regressions:
* Compared identical DOCX inputs before and after this branch: chunk
counts, extracted text, table HTML, and image descriptions match
perfectly.
* **Confirmed a noticeable drop in peak memory usage when processing
image-dense documents.** For a 30MB Word document containing 243 1080p
screenshots, memory consumption is reduced by approximately 1.5GB.
**Breaking Changes**
None.
### What problem does this PR solve?
Add image table context to pipeline splitter.
### Type of change
- [x] New Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
