Fix duplicate PPD->IPP media-type name mappings #688
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Plombo
force-pushed
the
media-type-no-duplicate-names
branch
from
35442c5
to
d4f91f4
Compare
michaelrsweet
requested changes
May 22, 2023
|
@michaelrsweet here I wasn't sure whether this is something we should tackle, because it seems like PPD problem to me and we could report a warning when reading the file plus use the first/the last value of the same translation string. |
|
@zdohnal It isn't unusual for a PPD file to contain some odd media type names, and the proposed change is reasonable to preserve the ability to select any PPD media type via IPP. |
Plombo
force-pushed
the
media-type-no-duplicate-names
branch
from
d4f91f4
to
9b0c59e
Compare
|
Thanks for the review! I've implemented all of your recommended changes except for the one about the evaluation order of the chained assignment, which I replied to. |
If more than one MediaType in a PPD matched the pattern for a registered PWG media-type name, they would all be mapped to that name, making it impossible for a client using CUPS' IPP interface to distinguish between them or specify a particular one. This comes up with Epson-provided PPDs, which frequently hit this case by combining print quality with media type like so: *MediaType PLAIN_HIGH/Plain paper-High: " *MediaType PLAIN_NORMAL/Plain paper-Standard: " Solve this problem by not assigning the standard PWG name to either one when such duplication occurs.
Plombo
force-pushed
the
media-type-no-duplicate-names
branch
from
9b0c59e
to
55f5b24
Compare
|
Implemented the last suggested change, using a temporary variable for the sum of the "auto" values. |
michaelrsweet
approved these changes
May 24, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If more than one MediaType in a PPD matched the pattern for a registered PWG media-type name, they would all be mapped to that name, making it impossible for a client using CUPS' IPP interface to distinguish between them or specify a particular one.
This comes up with Epson-provided PPDs like this one, which frequently hit this case by combining print quality with media type like so:
Solve this problem by not assigning the standard PWG name to either one when such duplication occurs.