Feature/#8 Add support to download documents

[olvr-me]

Hello @VMelnalksnis,

I came across issue #8 in your library and thought adding download functionality might be a useful enhancement, so I gave it a try and submitted a PR.

I wasn’t sure if you generally welcome PR contributions from others, so please feel free to give any feedback or decline the PR if it doesn’t align with your vision - this is your project, and I completely respect your direction.

I referred to the endpoint and functionality described here: Paperless API - Downloading Documents. I’m fairly new to Paperless, so I hope I’ve understood everything correctly. I added test cases to your IntegrationTest project, and they all passed successfully. I incorporated the download functionality into the existing create-test flow, where the document is downloaded and the ContentType, FileName, and content are checked against expected values. I used the presence of "lorem ipsum" in both the filename and content as validation to ensure everything is working as expected.

Since this is my first open-source contribution, I’m happy to receive any feedback you may have.

Thank you for creating/maintaining this project and considering my contribution!

[cocogitto-bot]

❌ Found 0 compliant commit and 7 non-compliant commits in 8c90362...d74a818.

Commit 8c90362 by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: Add DS_Store to gitignore
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:4
        |
      1 | Add DS_Store to gitignore
        |    ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

Commit a16423d by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: First tests to implement downloading a file (WIP)
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:6
        |
      1 | First tests to implement downloading a file (WIP)
        |      ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

Commit a3b8184 by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: Fixed wrong routes and using
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:6
        |
      1 | Fixed wrong routes and using
        |      ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

Commit 31b870c by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: Added data class for document content
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:6
        |
      1 | Added data class for document content
        |      ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

Commit fe7d1df by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: Fix warning
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:4
        |
      1 | Fix warning
        |    ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

Commit 5439c5e by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: Use new class to also return fileName and ContentType of document
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:4
        |
      1 | Use new class to also return fileName and ContentType of document
        |    ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

Commit d74a818 by @olvr-me is not conform to the conventional commit specification :

• message: Added parameter in test for better readability
• cause:

  Missing commit type separator `:`
  
  Caused by:
       --> 1:6
        |
      1 | Added parameter in test for better readability
        |      ^---
        |
        = expected scope or type_separator
  

[VMelnalksnis]

Hi @olvr-me, I went through the changes and had some comments, if something's not clear or you disagree with something let me know. From the documentation it looks like preview and thumbnail should work the same, so maybe you could also add methods for that as part of this PR. The only thing that looks different is the request URI, so you could create a private method Task<DocumentContent> ContentCore(Uri requestUri, CancellationToken cancellationToken) that all the public methods use.

[olvr-me]

Thank you so much for the quick and detailed feedback!
I really appreciate the time you took to review and provide detailed comments. I agree with all your suggestions and aim to implement these changes by the end of this week.

There was just one comment I wasn’t entirely clear on, so I’ve left a follow-up question there for you when you have a moment.

[olvr-me]

Hi @VMelnalksnis,

I’ve implemented the suggested changes—thanks again for your feedback! I also had three follow-up questions, which I left in comments at the relevant changes. If you have a moment to look over those, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.16%. Comparing base (fafc89b) to head (846fbd8).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...lksnis.PaperlessDotNet/Documents/DocumentClient.cs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️
...ksnis.PaperlessDotNet/Documents/DocumentContent.cs	88.88%	1 Missing ⚠️
source/VMelnalksnis.PaperlessDotNet/Routes.cs	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #253      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.42%   92.16%   -0.27%     
==========================================
  Files          29       30       +1     
  Lines         449      485      +36     
  Branches       55       55              
==========================================
+ Hits          415      447      +32     
- Misses         19       23       +4     
  Partials       15       15              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[VMelnalksnis]

I'll take a look (again) on how to correctly setup actions with secrets. I can't seem to be able to get it working both for myself when working with branches, and for others working with forks.

[olvr-me]

Alright, no worries if you’re busy—there’s no pressure to respond right away.
Thank you very much for your time!

[VMelnalksnis]

@olvr-me Sorry it took so long, but actions should be working now if you rebase your branch. I see that there were some warnings that should be fixed though https://github.com/VMelnalksnis/PaperlessDotNet/actions/runs/11784782522/job/32844179014?pr=253#step:7:1269

[VMelnalksnis]

Looks good to me, can ignore the missing code coverage. I merge the commits from PRs as is into master, so since it's ready to be merged, could you squash the WIP commits? I think all the changes releated to document download can be a single feat commit, the .gitignore can stay separate.

[olvr-me]

Hi @VMelnalksnis,

No worries about taking your time to respond - I just squashed the commits as you requested.

[olvr-me]

I just noticed that I hadn't removed the unnecessary using directive. Since I don't have ReSharper installed, I didn't see that warning before pushing. Sorry about that.

[VMelnalksnis]

Yeah, I must have done something wrong with the PR checks, it checked master instead of your branch. No worries, I'll fix it in my next PR.