Ha actually what I said is inaccurate, I have a script to import new forms and it was pointing towards a old version of quexf causing me much confusion.

Regardless I'm still seeing inconsistency between test compatibility and real scans. When I look in test compatibility with a scanned sheet it picks up the guide lines. When I process the same PDF, I can get inaccurate data. The is presumably because the scan line is not picked up correctly. But I can't debug it other than lots of trial and error. I can't get a visual of what's going on.  Any ideas?




On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:33 PM, David Burke <david@burkesoftware.com> wrote:
Hello Adam,

I was playing around with the new "test form compatibility with queXF". I see there are some config settings such as PAGE_GUIDE_X_PORTION that will change the boxes where it looks for guide lines. This can sometimes be required to change for a form to be compatible. I think one can safely assume if the original pdf form requires this, all scanned forms would use the same settings. 

Currently in page setup the guide line box defaults to where it goes without consideration to PAGE_GUIDE_X_PORTION. I think page setup should consider these values. In many cases this would make page setup unnecessary (which means less work for administrators). Thoughts?

I was debugging the code a little. I believe in functions/functions.import.php defaultpage the x_portion is taken into consideration. However in page setup it just get's whatever value happens to be in the database. This value however is never explicitly set. It comes from a default sql value as seen in database/quexf.sql

I suppose a fix would have to calculate the default values in new.php and explicitly set them in the database.

Best,

David