Filename obfuscation in gramps web reports

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Filename obfuscation in gramps web reports

adrian.davey
Is someone please able to explain the reasoning behind the fact Narrated Web and Dynamic Web reports in gramps produce output in which the filenames of media objects are renamed with an unintelligible [obfuscated] name?

More importantly, is it possible to explain why, so far at least, there has been no option of instead retaining user filenames if that is preferred?

[I will happily raise a feature request if that is all that is required to kick start this!]

I assume obfuscation is a deliberate and desirable thing in certain circumstances, and I have no problem with it being available, or even the default, but I must admit I have long been puzzled that it appears to be the only option.

I have been a gramps user now for about five years, and in my circumstances the unilateral renaming of media objects has so far caused me to manage all such files outside gramps. It would be much more satisfactory if I could control how they behave within gramps reports. In the real world, my end users will inevitably copy, rename and redistribute some of these images, ESPECIALLY if they have an unintillegible filename, so it is pretty wasteful to remove critical information [including copyright constraints] originally included within the filename that might help others later on, and help minimise confusion! For some file formats [e.g pdf], I can embed critical information in metadata, and lock it there, but many useful file formats do not give me that option.

I manage a database of over 30K individuals, and none of the family members with whom I am in contact is interested in the database as such, so much as its content. For trusted family members, I routinely share a Narrated Web report [and am now trialling the Dynamic Web report], so they not only have access to the current content of at least their branch of the database [albeit a snapshot at a particular time], but have the interactivity of exploring relationships.

Having gone to the trouble of ensuring that all my original media files have systematic meaningful names incorporating suitably abbreviated keywords relating to the individuals or families and/or placenames in question, together with details of source, I was extremely unimpressed to discover that if I distributed such files to family members via the gramps web report options they ceased to have a meaningful name. So in my current workflow they get distributed quite separately.

I am well aware that certain filenames—if allowed to run out towards a total path length [for the end user] close to or beyond the 255 limit of certain file systems & disk formats—can cause varying degrees of trouble, but I have found those issues are quite manageable. Again, I understand there are complexities to do with relative and absolute paths to media objects, but I have also found those to be manageable.

thanks, Adrian Davey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filename obfuscation in gramps web reports

Serge Noiraud-2
Hi Adrian,

Le 30/08/2016 à 02:14, Adrian Davey a écrit :
Is someone please able to explain the reasoning behind the fact Narrated Web and Dynamic Web reports in gramps produce output in which the filenames of media objects are renamed with an unintelligible [obfuscated] name?
These are not unintelligible [obfuscated] name. These names correspond to the "handle" stored in the database.
This is the only way to have a unique name. We tried at the beginning to use the person name and surname, .., but we had duplicate file names.

More importantly, is it possible to explain why, so far at least, there has been no option of instead retaining user filenames if that is preferred?

[I will happily raise a feature request if that is all that is required to kick start this!]

I assume obfuscation is a deliberate and desirable thing in certain circumstances, and I have no problem with it being available, or even the default, but I must admit I have long been puzzled that it appears to be the only option.

I have been a gramps user now for about five years, and in my circumstances the unilateral renaming of media objects has so far caused me to manage all such files outside gramps. It would be much more satisfactory if I could control how they behave within gramps reports. In the real world, my end users will inevitably copy, rename and redistribute some of these images, ESPECIALLY if they have an unintillegible filename, so it is pretty wasteful to remove critical information [including copyright constraints] originally included within the filename that might help others later on, and help minimise confusion! For some file formats [e.g pdf], I can embed critical information in metadata, and lock it there, but many useful file formats do not give me that option.

I manage a database of over 30K individuals, and none of the family members with whom I am in contact is interested in the database as such, so much as its content. For trusted family members, I routinely share a Narrated Web report [and am now trialling the Dynamic Web report], so they not only have access to the current content of at least their branch of the database [albeit a snapshot at a particular time], but have the interactivity of exploring relationships.
This is nevertheless the only solution (ged or .gramps). You can export only some parts of your big tree.
For the narrativeweb, You can select the person for who you want to make the tree.

Having gone to the trouble of ensuring that all my original media files have systematic meaningful names incorporating suitably abbreviated keywords relating to the individuals or families and/or placenames in question, together with details of source, I was extremely unimpressed to discover that if I distributed such files to family members via the gramps web report options they ceased to have a meaningful name. So in my current workflow they get distributed quite separately.

I am well aware that certain filenames—if allowed to run out towards a total path length [for the end user] close to or beyond the 255 limit of certain file systems & disk formats—can cause varying degrees of trouble, but I have found those issues are quite manageable. Again, I understand there are complexities to do with relative and absolute paths to media objects, but I have also found those to be manageable.

thanks, Adrian Davey

Serge


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filename obfuscation in gramps web reports

Alain AUPEIX
Le 30/08/2016 à 12:29, Serge Noiraud a écrit :

> Hi Adrian,
>
> Le 30/08/2016 à 02:14, Adrian Davey a écrit :
>> Is someone please able to explain the reasoning behind the fact
>> Narrated Web and Dynamic Web reports in gramps produce output in
>> which the filenames of media objects are renamed with an
>> unintelligible [obfuscated] name?
> These are not unintelligible [obfuscated] name. These names correspond
> to the "handle" stored in the database.
> This is the only way to have a unique name. We tried at the beginning
> to use the person name and surname, .., but we had duplicate file names.
Another solution that I used with books where I added photos was to
prefix the images names with IDs

Examples :

I0292_Aupeix, Jean.png, I0293_Aupeix, Jean.png ...
F0104_Aupeix-Magne.png ...

This has the advantage to be more intelligible for human ...

A+
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alain Aupeix
http://jujuland.pagesperso-orange.fr/
http://pissobi-lacassagne.pagesperso-orange.fr/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.buntu 12.04 | G.ramps 3.4.9-1 | H.arbour 3.2.0dev (2016-08-10 17:12) |
Hw.Gui 2.19-6 (2567)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filename obfuscation in gramps web reports

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Serge Noiraud-2
On 08/30/2016 08:36 AM, Alain Aupeix wrote:

> Another solution that I used with books where I added photos was to
> prefix the images names with IDs
>
> Examples :
>
> I0292_Aupeix, Jean.png, I0293_Aupeix, Jean.png ...
> F0104_Aupeix-Magne.png ...
>
> This has the advantage to be more intelligible for human ...

But fails when you do a "Reorder Gramps ID" after adding another 0 to the ID
Format (going from I%04d to I%05d).

--
World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users