Re: Another possible gb.poppler bug?

[gbWilly <gbWilly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025 at 07:20, Lee <t.lee.davidson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 12/1/25 7:52 PM, gbWilly wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 23:39, Lee t.lee.davidson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > I may have guessed wrong about there being no Thumbs in the F16866* file. To my knowledge, Okular will not display thumbnails if
> > > there are none in the document. But, it does for that file.
> > > 
> > > What may be the issue is, that file appears to be PDF version 1.4, while the other two are 1.6 or 1.7. Perhaps the thumbnails
> > > are referenced differently in the earlier version.
> > 
> > That exactly what I mean. I have the idea that there are thumbs in several of the files I open, the self render is just a workaround for when nor thumbs are found internal.
> > And just as with the pages, could there something missing (another reference as you say) that prevents from retrieving the thumbs in certain files. That is what I would like to know.
> 
> 
> I don't think PDF version is at issue. I selected six of my PDF documents that represented versions from 1.1 to 1.7 excluding
> 1.2. Your demo project found thumbnails only in the 1.3 versioned document. In all the others, it found none.
> 
> And, contrary to what my research told me, I believe that Okular does indeed generate thumbnails if there are none embedded in
> the document. I viewed one particular PDF that was obviously constructed of scanned images of physical documents. It appeared
> that Okular generated thumbnails only as needed, ie. when the thumbnail for a page was scrolled into view.

This makes me more convinced that gb.poppler is acting correctly.

gbWilly