Thanks a lot for your help. Have a good weekend
I am afraid that I am not going to get an answer... Le sam. 17 déc. 2022, 14:47, Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de> a écrit : > I thought the visual / non visual signature isn't the problem, that there > is some unknown difference between what you use for the second signature > and what I use, but then... > > It just got weirder! I reopened the file I mentioned in my last post and > now it looks like this: > > This is definitively some Adobe weirdness. You should report it there. > Alternatively / Additionally, try asking on stackoverflow or related site > if anybody has an idea what happened. > > Tilman > > On 17.12.2022 13:51, Frédéric Ravetier wrote: > > Thanks again. > > Yes sorry, the test is not exactly the same, because our tool is now using > visual signature. If necessary I can change the code to have invisible > signature... > > What can I do to go forward or help or...? > > Le sam. 17 déc. 2022, 13:43, Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de> a > écrit : > >> Thanks for trying this. This time the first signature is a visual >> signature. The stamp annotation object is 129, and my analysis is the same: >> that object was never provided in another incremental save, so I don't know >> why Adobe claims it was changed. >> >> And it gets weirder: >> I used NOTEPAD++ to get the previous revision of your last document. Then >> I signed that one with PDFBox example (latest 3.0 snapshot) and I don't >> have the effect you mention, only a complaint that my signature is >> self-certified. >> >> >> Tilman >> >> On 17.12.2022 12:54, Frédéric Ravetier wrote: >> >> So I tried again with a PDF without a signature. >> I switch the jar on the tool that sign the PDF to use the snapshot >> I send the pdf to the tool to have a first signature >> I used my java program to add an annotation >> I send again the pdf to the tool for a second signature >> >> I still have the same behavior :(. >> This is the final PDF >> :https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CV7lJ8dY1gDcx3rgHoW5yHJ612JSAK9B/view?usp=share_link >> >> >> Le sam. 17 déc. 2022 à 12:27, Frédéric Ravetier <fravet...@vikta.com> >> <fravet...@vikta.com> a >> écrit : >> >> >> OK so my test was useless. I will try again >> >> Le sam. 17 déc. 2022, 11:30, Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de> >> <thaush...@t-online.de> a >> écrit : >> >> >> On 17.12.2022 11:19, Frédéric Ravetier wrote: >> >> Maybe I did not understand well. >> >> Should I use the snapshot version before the first signature ? >> >> You should use the snapshot to create the first signature, that's what I >> meant. >> >> My hope is that this Adobe behavior is related to that bug. >> >> No, the bug fix does not help with a document that already has that >> signature. >> >> Tilman >> >> >> >> Or the goal of the bug fix is to manage a document that contains this >> >> kind >> >> of initial signature which is invisible ? (which was my test, so it >> >> means >> >> the bug is not fix, or I did not test it correctly or this is another >> >> use >> >> case) >> >> Thanks >> Fred >> >> >> >> Le sam. 17 déc. 2022 à 05:16, Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de> >> <thaush...@t-online.de> a >> écrit : >> >> >> That new PDF also has that the initial signature does not appear in the >> page annotations (which was the bug fixed in the issue). >> >> Tilman >> >> On 16.12.2022 20:56, Frédéric Ravetier wrote: >> >> I tried to switch the jar on the environment where there is the >> >> application >> >> that sign the PDF in order to use the snapshot. >> Here the pdf I got : >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zwV0i3SCQrqxRICpVWhbR09Of2FD0Ur7/view?usp=sharing >> >> But it looks the same in acrobat :(. >> >> Best regards, >> Fred >> >> Le ven. 16 déc. 2022 à 13:19, Frédéric Ravetier <fravet...@vikta.com> >> <fravet...@vikta.com> >> >> a >> >> écrit : >> >> >> I read the issue too quickly. >> The problem is on DSS side, and the jar file should be modified on my >> provider side. I will see if we can perform this test on a dev >> >> environment. >> >> Le ven. 16 déc. 2022 à 13:06, Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de> >> <thaush...@t-online.de> >> >> a >> >> écrit : >> >> >> On 16.12.2022 12:59, Frédéric Ravetier wrote: >> >> Good idea, I can try to use the latest snapshot jar. Is there a >> snapshot build (jar) available? >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.28-SNAPSHOT/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@pdfbox.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@pdfbox.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@pdfbox.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@pdfbox.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@pdfbox.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@pdfbox.apache.org >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@pdfbox.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@pdfbox.apache.org > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@pdfbox.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@pdfbox.apache.org
