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

"Marker scan hit start of image data" should not be the WARN #24

Open
niwics opened this issue Sep 12, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

"Marker scan hit start of image data" should not be the WARN #24

niwics opened this issue Sep 12, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@niwics
Copy link

niwics commented Sep 12, 2020

When parsing JPEG files with no IPTC data, I suppose that the scanning message Marker scan hit start of image data should not be logged as warning, but as info. At least when I use the force=True flag in IPTCInfo constructor (intended for processing files without IPTC data).

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the possibility to determine whether my image has IPTC data or not without warnings.

@james-see
Copy link
Owner

@niwics That depends on what assumptions the package should have re: IPTC data present in images it is scanning. I feel like if force=True, it should just change it to INFO instead of WARNING, since you are basically overriding the traditional approach of getting data about the image being loaded.

@james-see james-see self-assigned this Oct 12, 2020
@niwics
Copy link
Author

niwics commented Mar 20, 2021

I agree with that - when I use the flag force=True, I assume that no IPTC data are there so INFO log level is appropriate.

@james-see james-see added this to To do in Clean up the issues backlog via automation Oct 30, 2021
@james-see james-see added this to the iptcinfo3 next version milestone Oct 30, 2021
@james-see
Copy link
Owner

minor issue compared to supporting latest IPTC tags that still need work. closing for now unless sponsored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants