On 18.12.2022 14:58, Frédéric Ravetier wrote:
Hey, thanks a lot for your help.
I just added
t.setPage(page);
in my method addAnnotation
Do you think it should be added in pdfbox when we do :
page.setAnnotations(annotations);
I'm undecided - this is called very often and I wonder if we're
modifying PDFs that we're loading. (But I tried it and build worked
fine) The next best idea would be to put out a warning, but this could
come when flattening PDFs that we get and people get scared and make
support requests.
Tilman
Le sam. 17 déc. 2022 à 20:01, Frédéric Ravetier <fravet...@vikta.com> a
écrit :
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
