Open noviluni opened 3 years ago
Merging #216 (9663dd1) into master (80509e4) will decrease coverage by
0.33%
. The diff coverage is50.00%
.:exclamation: Current head 9663dd1 differs from pull request most recent head f0a8c56. Consider uploading reports for the commit f0a8c56 to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #216 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 100.00% 99.66% -0.34%
===========================================
Files 5 5
Lines 298 300 +2
Branches 51 52 +1
===========================================
+ Hits 298 299 +1
- Misses 0 1 +1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
parsel/selector.py | 99.36% <50.00%> (-0.64%) |
:arrow_down: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 80509e4...f0a8c56. Read the comment docs.
See https://github.com/scrapy/parsel/issues/26 for some background discussion that goes back to a Scrapy issue.
This is just an idea I had that I would like to discuss.
I've seen that the
requests-html
library adds alinks()
method to extract all the URLs in the HTML. In parsel you can easily extract the links by usingcss()
orxpath()
, but there could be some logic that could be simplified by creating alinks()
method (see code).A possible use would be to use it in conjunction with
scrapy.Response.follow_all()
to easily crawl all URLs in the HTML.Of course, this should be refactored, properly documented, and tested. Or even converted to a generator. We could also exclude other URL patterns like
tel:
or even add a method parameter to filter the URLS (by a regex pattern like we do inscrapy.sitemap.SitemapSpider
?) or implement an option to get the absolute links.So I would like to know what you think about this, if you think it's useful or not and if it should be implemented or not (or alternatively, if it should be implemented directly into the
scrapy.selector.Selector
) :slightly_smiling_face:Resolves #26