Hi Ratislav, All I know is that the last commit dates back Jun 27, 2021 and it was a merge of a PR: https://github.com/Nalin-x-Linux/lios-3 Maybe try to file an issue? The are 16 forks (including mine) , none with enhancements or bug fixes. Cheers, Didier -- Didier Spaier Slint maintainer Le 28/07/2022 à 21:53, Linux for blind general discussion a écrit : > Hello list, > > today, I finally decided to get my scanner working, and thus, try out > LIOS as well. > > > Unfortunately, this turned out to be a little more troublesome one would > expect. > > > First of all, LIOS was unable to parse the information of my network > scanner, there already seems to be an issue about this on the project's > GitHub, if the causes are identical. > > > This didn't really surprise me, there are many scanners and I'm not sure > how precisely are they following the standards, so okay, I dived into > the code and fixed dthe parsing on the place where it broke. > > > But the other issues I found were far more stunning. > > > First of all, the update scanners list function doesn't have scoped > try/except blocks, but rather one big, that basically covers all the > function's code. > > > What this means in practice is, that if LIOS fails to open a scanner > (like it did with mine), instead of proceeding to others, the function > simply aborts and that's that. > > > My scanner is represented by approx. 3 or 4 devices, I get one in the > list, since the opening of the second-one crashes and the others are > thus not loaded. > > > I'm not sure whether there is any difference between them in this > particular scenario, but if their order was either different or I had > multiple connected scanners, the devices evaluated after the > problematic-one would be simply unreachable. > > > And there is another issue, that's totally cryptic to me. > > > When I choose to scan an image with the scanners already loaded, instead > of simply using the selected-one, LIOS updates the list first (what > takes quite a some time), and just afterwards makes the scan. > > > That's just obviously wrong, so I checked the code again, and this is > what I found in the scan methods: > > > if(not self.is_updating_scanner_list or > len(self.scanner_objects) == 0): > self.update_scanner_list(); > > Translated to english, this says: if the scanner list is not being > updated or there are no scanners, update the list. > > > This kind of shocked me. You don't even need to be a programmer to know > it's wrong, the correct formulation would be: if the list of scanners is > not being updated and there are no scanners, update the list. > > > i.e. you need to change one word. A trivial, elementar mistake. > > I'm not sure who did it, I kind of can't believe someone who coded a > program of this complexity would, perhaps it came with a PR. > > > What bothers me more is why didn't it get fixed, it's not something > you're going to overlook as scanning is the main function of the > program, and dsince it's so easy to fix, I would expect it to be already > repaired. > > > So, the question is, does anyone have any information on what's the > current status of the development? > > > Is it still active, are PRs accepted or, didd anyone create a fork if not? > > > Thanks! > > > Best regards > > > Rastislav _______________________________________________ Blinux-list mailing list Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list