[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4732?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18081335#comment-18081335
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TIKA-4732:
--------------------------------------
tballison opened a new pull request, #2820:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tika/pull/2820
<!--
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
distributed with this work for additional information
regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
"License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
software distributed under the License is distributed on an
"AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
specific language governing permissions and limitations
under the License.
-->
Thanks for your contribution to [Apache Tika](https://tika.apache.org/)!
Your help is appreciated!
Before opening the pull request, please verify that
* there is an open issue on the [Tika issue
tracker](https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TIKA) which describes the
problem or the improvement. We cannot accept pull requests without an issue
because the change wouldn't be listed in the release notes.
* the issue ID (`TIKA-XXXX`)
- is referenced in the title of the pull request
- and placed in front of your commit messages surrounded by square
brackets (`[TIKA-XXXX] Issue or pull request title`)
* commits are squashed into a single one (or few commits for larger changes)
* Tika is successfully built and unit tests pass by running `./mvnw clean
test`
* there should be no conflicts when merging the pull request branch into the
*recent* `main` branch. If there are conflicts, please try to rebase the pull
request branch on top of a freshly pulled `main` branch
* if you add new module that downstream users will depend upon add it to
relevant group in `tika-bom/pom.xml`.
We will be able to faster integrate your pull request if these conditions
are met. If you have any questions how to fix your problem or about using Tika
in general, please sign up for the [Tika mailing
list](http://tika.apache.org/mail-lists.html). Thanks!
> Duplicate source file included in unpack/all server responses
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TIKA-4732
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-4732
> Project: Tika
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tika-server
> Reporter: Lawrence Moorehead
> Priority: Minor
>
> I was looking into the tika-4.0.0-alpha1 release unpack/all endpoint and
> noticed that the REGULAR and FRICTIONLESS formats both insert two copies of
> the original source file into the zip response. One version is named in the
> normal way for the format and one is named after the temp file created in the
> PipesWorker. I assume this wasn't intentional since the ParseHandler also
> includes the file based on the {{includeOriginal}} config.
> I put an example output below, hopefully that clarifies what I'm seeing.
> REGULAR unpack/all on a .docx with an embedded image.
> ||Path||Note||
> |0.docx| |
> |0.docx.metadata.json| |
> |1.jpg| |
> |1.jpg.metadata.json| |
> |tika-unpack-6334398074681213642.docx|Duplicate of 0.docx|
> FRICTIONLESS unpack/all
> ||Path||Note||
> |datapackage.json|Three file references|
> |metadata.json|Two metadata entries.|
> |unpacked/0.docx| |
> |unpacked/1.jpg| |
> |tika-unpack-16513904232837934973.docx|Duplicate|
> Here are my changes to update the PipesWorker so we don't get two copies of
> the original file: https://github.com/elemdisc/tika/pull/2
> Additionally I noticed that the temp filename is used in the
> RESOURCE_NAME_KEY metadata for the source file in the response. I made an
> update (in a separate commit) to reuse the supplied filename in the metadata.
> I think that makes more sense for most people and doesn't cause any issues
> with anything else in Tika, but it doesn't actually impact my usage so I'm
> fine leaving this alone too.
> Let me know if there's something I'm missing in terms of why it was setup
> this way or issues with the changes I'm suggesting. Thanks!
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
