Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature Request: Support for more Response Groups #133

Open
ThomasProctor opened this issue Mar 28, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Feature Request: Support for more Response Groups #133

ThomasProctor opened this issue Mar 28, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@ThomasProctor
Copy link

Right now, there is very limited support for the "AlternateVersions" and "Variations" response groups. The API supports many response groups, and I would imagine that this package poorly supports many others as well. Based on a quick skim of the code, it seems like only "Large", and "BrowseNodeInfo" are explicitly supported. Response groups that happen to have elements that are shared by these two (ex "Medium" and "Small") will have limited support as well.

An alternate versions search will return an AmazonProduct object with None for almost all attributes and methods except for to_string(). I have been resorting to processing the xml myself using an lxml.etree.

This might be out of the scope of this project ("simple" is in the name), but it would be awfully nice to have this ability. Looking physical books is basically impossible using titles because Amazon always returns the kindle e-book if available, so looking at the "AlternativeVersions" is a necessity.

For AltenateVersions at least, returning a list of dictionaries of title, binding, ASIN values would be the logical thing. I imagine that "Variations" will be similar. I'm not sure if this is best done via a keyword argument (ie ResponseGroup="AltenateVersions") or a bunch of methods (ie api.search_alternate_versions()) though.

@ThomasProctor
Copy link
Author

This should be closed as it's a repeat of #60.

@yoavaviram
Copy link
Owner

@ThomasProctor, would you be interested in attempting the re-factor / becoming a core committer?

@ThomasProctor
Copy link
Author

@yoavaviram, Hmm... I don't think I really have time to jump into the refactor now, and I can't imagine having it in the next 2-3 years.

@ThomasProctor
Copy link
Author

@yoavaviram I would be up for doing some of the maintenance duties. Most of the pull requests you have backed up make some fairly good contributions, and I'd be willing to clean them up and write the tests for them.

@yoavaviram
Copy link
Owner

@ThomasProctor i've added as a collaborator, feel free to jump in. I hope to have some time in the next weeks to fix the failing tests (and maybe find a better mechanism to prevent it breaking in the future).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants