ENH: ease Permissions readability/writability #2397
Conversation
Issue due to unclosure of temporary file closes py-pdf#2394
| if permissions_code is None: | ||
| permissions_code = cast( | ||
| int, | ||
| cast(DictionaryObject, self.trailer[TK.ENCRYPT]).get("/P", -1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not use self._encryption.P here?
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2397 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.35% 94.39% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 43 43
Lines 7577 7599 +22
Branches 1519 1529 +10
==========================================
+ Hits 7149 7173 +24
+ Misses 265 264 -1
+ Partials 163 162 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| @@ -1065,7 +1065,9 @@ def encrypt( | |||
| user_password: str, | |||
| owner_password: Optional[str] = None, | |||
| use_128bit: bool = True, | |||
| permissions_flag: UserAccessPermissions = ALL_DOCUMENT_PERMISSIONS, | |||
| permissions_flag: Union[ | |||
| UserAccessPermissions, Dict[str, bool] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we really complicate this API further? We cannot we just provide a convenience method on UserAccessPermissions instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd also prefer not to add the string versions here. I regret adding them in the first place 🙈
|
Just as a note: As mentioned in #2391 (comment), I have a corresponding POC here as well and just want to do it in one clean commit, thus did not yet create a PR myself until I am in office again - the advantage would be that it relies on the |
closes #2391
still test to be added