fix_1959_tz #2103
fix_1959_tz #2103
Conversation
…ring it, adding to test_reference_files and evading the TZ issue discussed in #2083.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2103 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 63.75% 63.75%
=======================================
Files 96 96
Lines 19202 19202
Branches 9798 9798
=======================================
Hits 12242 12242
Misses 4658 4658
Partials 2302 2302 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ | |||
| exif:ExifVersion="0232" | |||
| exif:FlashpixVersion="0100" | |||
| exif:ColorSpace="65535" | |||
| photoshop:DateCreated="2022-01-04T09:41:01+00:00" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting, you took the same approach I wanted to take here: #2079.
For me it is fine to recover the test case like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great minds think alike!
it's not really a fix. It's evasion. It's the metadata convertors. I don't know who thought of adding convertors to the code base. If those convertors are not defined in a standard, they should be implemented in another different project which might use libexiv2. However, I don't know why this is in the metadata engine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The removal of test_issue_1959.py was discussed and agreed on in #2091, based on that it would only duplicate the output reference file.
test/data/issue_1959_poc.xmp.out is now basically a somewhat less verbose copy of test/data/test_reference_files/issue_1959_poc.xmp.out
That said, I don't have a strong opinion and am happy to go with whatever the crew decides.
But what would be the benefit of adding this test twice?
I don't know why test_issue_1959.py was removed in b318b9d. I'm restoring it, adding to test_reference_files and evading the TZ issue discussed in #2083.
@postscript-dev 1959 was provided by IPTC in #1959. I don't think they will object to this change, however it would be courteous to let the user know that their file has been modified.