Skip to content
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

Name files based on metadata #2349

Open
k-manji opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Name files based on metadata #2349

k-manji opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@k-manji
Copy link

k-manji commented Nov 1, 2023

I would really love the ability to rename files based on metadata fields. Often times, filenames out of a scanner/app are not very descriptive and the metadata that I would assign to them would be helpful to rename the file with. This would be especially useful when exporting files. I do see related issues open for docspell/dsc#114 and am wondering if there is any update on that? I did not post this in that thread as I think being able to rename files from the front-end to match with metadata fields would be a different issue.

Ideally, one would be able to define custom filename formats/templates based on metadata fields and choose from a list of those to have the renaming applied to the filename. These templates could then also be used when defining "sources" to automate naming.

@eikek
Copy link
Owner

eikek commented Nov 5, 2023

Hi @k-manji I think this came up in the past a few times, but I can't find it anymore. As you found in docspell/dsc#114 I'd like this feature to be moved to the client side. Changing file names based on metadata is more difficult than it might seem at first and for me it just is not very interesting to be honest. The metadata itself is already there, for me there is not much use replicating it into the file name. It only gets interesting once you download things - and this is what dsc is for. Then it also means, that the system must react to metadata changes and update the filename in the database accordingly. There could be lots of request hitting the server regarding one item and then this gets a bit annoying to code. Doing this on the client, removes many of these annoyances :). So all in all I'm myself a bit reluctant to this feature.

@madduck
Copy link
Contributor

madduck commented Nov 5, 2023

@k-manji are you talking about the title? Then I am with @eikek — the metadata is already there and should not be duplicated.

Or are you talking about filesystem exports? In that case, I think #2270 is really the way to go.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants