[reportlab-users] Tried reportlab on python 3.4... failed

[Glenn Linderman]

On 10/25/2014 7:16 PM, Andy Robinson wrote:
> Hi Glenn,
>
> As far as we know the code behaves identically in Pythons 2.7, 3.3 and
> 3.4; certainly the user guide generates and all the tests run.
Thanks, Andy, your suggestions certainly look more practical than the 
user guide code, so I reworked  the code in the manner you suggest 
(although your styBase omits the name parameter, in case someone else 
uses this as a reference), and got it to work, no longer needing to deal 
with endDot or splitLongWords... or quite a few others.

However, in running the new code on an old file, it seems there may have 
been a change to the way image sizes are determined to fit or not, 
within a frame.

I don't recall how I figured out what image size (maybe from the error 
message I got then) was maximum when I set this up, but I was trying to 
fill the frame, and did... but now I get an error that the image is too 
big, but the image hasn't changed, nor has the frame size, unless this 
altered technique somehow changes it.

reportlab.platypus.doctemplate.LayoutError: Flowable <Image at 0x32f0b70 
frame=normal filename=...\front.jpg>(197.76 x 197.76) too large on page 
2 in frame 'normal'(186.0 x 186.0*) of template 'Later'

To obtain another data point, I used the new code, but the old python 
2.7 and reportlab 2.5, and the image size was accepted. So it may be 
that the _current_ code behaves identically on Python 2.7, 3.3, and 3.4 
(I don't have all the combinations installed), but the current reportlab 
code on Python 3.4 seems to behave differently than reportlab 2.5 on 
Python 2.7 regarding image and frame sizes.

The release notes on your site only go back to 2.7, so I can't say if 
2.6 specifically called out changes in this area, but I would assume 
that "minor" fixes not completely described in the release notes that 
are on the site wouldn't include significant changes to the image and 
frame size calculations.

I do note the switch from PIL to PILLOW but have no idea if that would 
affect the sizes: since both PIL and PILLOW deal in bitmaps, I would 
doubt it.

Any clues?

Here are some more details:

The actual image size is 412x412, and the resolution in the jpg file is 
300dpi.
The page size (small booklet) is 3.25"x3.25", with .25" margins all around.

Here is the code the positions the image on the page:

         res = 150
         page.do( False )
         im = Image( img, theCovWid/res*inch, theCovHei/res*inch )
         im.hAlign = 'CENTER'
         im.vAlign = 'CENTER'
         elements.append( im )
         page.do( True )

theCovWid and theCovHei are both 412.

When I calculate 3.25" - 2*.25 * 150, I get 412.5 which is only slightly 
larger than 412, and it works in rl2.5/Py2.7.

I have no idea where 197.76 or 186.0 come from.  Maybe that is in mm?  
Hmm. Nope. 2.75" == 69.85mm. Ah, maybe points... 2.75" = 198pt. Unless 
you use a point size other than 72/inch. Anyway this is pretty close. 
Assuming 186.0 is in the same units... that would be 2.58333"... the 
difference being about 12 points or 6 points a side if it is some sort 
of padding or margin, which seems likely, since it has affected both 
height and width calculations.

The documented defaults for all those sorts of things seem to be zero, 
rather than 6pts, however.

Glenn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/reportlab-users/attachments/20141025/06c5d7c4/attachment.html>