Skip to content
New issue

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

Do not force the presence of PDF format for all books #160

Open
benoit74 opened this issue Jan 19, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Do not force the presence of PDF format for all books #160

benoit74 opened this issue Jan 19, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@benoit74
Copy link
Collaborator

A few lines are forcing the presence of the PDF format for all books.

This is causing broken links / weird buttons in all books which do not have a PDF format.

Discussion on this issue already started here by mistake (my bad).

@benoit74 benoit74 changed the title Do not force the presence of the PDF format for all books Do not force the presence of PDF format for all books Jan 19, 2023
@kelson42 kelson42 added the bug label Jan 20, 2023
@rgaudin
Copy link
Member

rgaudin commented Jan 20, 2023

I don't understand this ticket. If it's independent to #159, does that mean that we have PDF files in ZIM files always? Even when we don't request them?

@benoit74
Copy link
Collaborator Author

It is relatively independent from #159
It means that no matter the content of the RDF, the scraper consider there is always a PDF format available for all books.
This causes the behavior you saw while testing #163 that when you request PDF among other export formats, you get many books with broken PDF buttons because the format is supposed to be there according to the bookformat table.

@rgaudin
Copy link
Member

rgaudin commented Jan 20, 2023

OK it's more clear: it fakes the availability of PDF for all books, even if there's no real PDF. Understood.

I don't see how it could affect #159 though but I believe we're not understanding each other on what #159 is about 😅

@eshellman
Copy link
Collaborator

eshellman commented Jan 20, 2023 via email

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 26, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be now be reviewed manually. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label May 26, 2023
@benoit74 benoit74 added this to the 3.0.0 milestone Aug 18, 2023
@stale stale bot removed the stale label Aug 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants