Combined Proof
-
paul_barker
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:25 pm
Combined Proof
I am trying to create a flow which takes several files which have there own private data from our MIS combine them for the PDF review module but then after approval/rejection the original files are injected back into the flow with there private data but also have the comment data from the review module. I have a flow which I though was working by packing the individual files and storing them with an indetifier and then after the PDF review module inject all the original files using the indentifier and unpack them which keeps the individuals private data, but I loose the comments data from the review module. Does anybody have any thoughts on a possible solution as I just can't find one.
Re: Combined Proof
Why would you store the original files somewhere and inject them again? The original file that you sent to the review server has not been modified for content, it is only the comments that were added. You can easily remove them with an Action List, the datasets will still exist.
If this is an article of faith for you, then the easiest solution is to attach the PDF to itself as an opaque dataset. After the return from the review server you can then extract the original PDF from the metadata and all job ticket info, private data, datasets will still be available.
There is one little snag: Opaque pickup does not have the mode "Asset is metadata". At least, not yet. We will be releasing a new version in the not too distant future that has that feature. In the meantime you have to work around it by letting the job go into two directions so you get a copy, rename it by adding a suffix and configuring Opaque pickup with that suffix.
If this is an article of faith for you, then the easiest solution is to attach the PDF to itself as an opaque dataset. After the return from the review server you can then extract the original PDF from the metadata and all job ticket info, private data, datasets will still be available.
There is one little snag: Opaque pickup does not have the mode "Asset is metadata". At least, not yet. We will be releasing a new version in the not too distant future that has that feature. In the meantime you have to work around it by letting the job go into two directions so you get a copy, rename it by adding a suffix and configuring Opaque pickup with that suffix.
-
paul_barker
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:25 pm
Re: Combined Proof
Hi Freddy
Thanks for the reply and sorry but I am still fairly new to Switch and still on a steep learning curve and not sure I understand you're reply. What I am trying to achieve is for a job which may have a lot of pieces of artwork which each have their own datasets with information collected from our MIS system to then be combined into 1 file for proofing through the review module but once this has been approved or rejected then go back to the individual files with their associated datasets to continue on for imposing but I need to have the reviewdetails metadata to attached to each file so I have the information of the page numbers that had comments added so I could then work out which files to remove from the flow. This is a follow on post from another one which you replied to about 'large numbers of proofs per job'. Maybe Im just trying to achieve the impossible.
Thanks for the reply and sorry but I am still fairly new to Switch and still on a steep learning curve and not sure I understand you're reply. What I am trying to achieve is for a job which may have a lot of pieces of artwork which each have their own datasets with information collected from our MIS system to then be combined into 1 file for proofing through the review module but once this has been approved or rejected then go back to the individual files with their associated datasets to continue on for imposing but I need to have the reviewdetails metadata to attached to each file so I have the information of the page numbers that had comments added so I could then work out which files to remove from the flow. This is a follow on post from another one which you replied to about 'large numbers of proofs per job'. Maybe Im just trying to achieve the impossible.