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
olevba : raises an error with an unknown docx #711
Comments
I can have a look at this, encountered a similar error when running olevba on a file from the unittests. I am currentyly extending ftguess, so can handle this case as well, I think |
Return False if OpenXML type has no known main relationship part. Otherwise recognize() will raise an error a few lines later at splitext(). This should solve issue decalage2#711 (author had suggested exactly this)
Return False if OpenXML type has no known main relationship part. Otherwise recognize() will raise an error a few lines later at splitext(). This should solve issue decalage2#711 (author had suggested exactly this)
Return False if OpenXML type has no known main relationship part. Otherwise recognize() will raise an error a few lines later at splitext(). This should solve issue decalage2#711 (author had suggested exactly this)
Return False if OpenXML type has no known main relationship part. Otherwise recognize() will raise an error a few lines later at splitext(). This should solve issue decalage2#711 (author had suggested exactly this)
I get the same error with XPS files, because they have a different relationship URI. |
Also @jcmbs could you please run |
Return False if OpenXML type has no known main relationship part. Otherwise recognize() will raise an error a few lines later at splitext(). This should solve issue decalage2#711 (author had suggested exactly this)
Hi,
olevba raises an error when it encounters a docx document that it is not able to identify :
In this case, in FType_Generic_OpenXML.recognize the main_part variable was left at None when it was used (os.path.splitext(main_part)[1][1:]).
Further up in the code there is a comment section that deals with this case. Not knowing why this section is commented out, I just added a test that temporarily solves the problem:
Since the offending document contains confidential information, I can't share it in this issue.
Version information:
Regards,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: