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

Reflect camelot in pypdf_table_extraction namespace #11

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

foarsitter
Copy link
Collaborator

This is the elaboration of #9 and the first step in rebranding.

I copied the file structure to /pypdf_table_extraction and imported all the objects from camelot where needed. This way I tried to achieve to be completely backwards compatible.

from camelot.backends.poppler_backend import PopplerBackend
from pypdf_table_extraction.backends.poppler_backend import PopplerBackend

from camelot.handlers import Lattice,Stream
from pypdf_table_extraction.parsers import Lattice,Stream

Copy link
Collaborator

@bosd bosd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM,
Maybe put line end at test_rename.py 😉

@foarsitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@MartinThoma can I have your opinion here?

@@ -55,6 +56,7 @@ myst-parser = {version = ">=0.16.1"}

[tool.poetry.scripts]
camelot = "camelot.__main__:main"
table_extraction = "pypdf_table_extraction.__main__:main"

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

probably better to do pdf_table_extraction or pypdf_table_extraction

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we go with pypdf_table_extraction?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AFAIK using pypdf_table_extraction would allow to use the same name for both calling the script directly and calling the module through python -m pypdf_table_extraction, which would avoid confusion.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree, calling the script with the same name as for the module is the way to go

There is already another module named pdf_table_extraction so using that name would also lead to confusion.

@bosd
Copy link
Collaborator

bosd commented Jul 31, 2024

Is it ok, to move forward with this one and merge?

@bosd bosd added good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Aug 10, 2024
@bosd
Copy link
Collaborator

bosd commented Aug 21, 2024

On a second thought, Let's merge this, after we merged all the open PR's from the old repo's here.
(As some are some big refactors, and merging them here is already a lot of work)

@bosd bosd mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2024
23 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants