Hello. I think the ".valid?" method is not accurate. as I can see it's only ch

Question about .valid? method about lisbn HOT 3 OPEN

ragalie commented on August 28, 2024

Question about .valid? method

from lisbn.

Comments (3)

slimdave commented on August 28, 2024 1

Yes the real validity test would be both checksum and that the range has been issued by ISBN international. Making the methods #valid_isbn_13? and #valid_isbn_10?public might be helpful.

from lisbn.

jbutton commented on August 28, 2024 1

Hi, thanks. I didn't have time to do the research yet. I'll do it soon. wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:37 David Aldridge <[email protected]> napisał(a):

…

Yes the real validity test would be both checksum and that the range has been issued by ISBN international. Making the methods #valid_isbn_13? and #valid_isbn_10?might be helpful. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#15 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAmCDhwTVV7qFhi9OHz0uOpnS1rtW-hCks5vMotUgaJpZM4ajy3e> .

-- Robert Skorupski

from lisbn.

ragalie commented on August 28, 2024

I agree, I think the valid? method is poorly named right now. It really is more like valid_checksum?.

I'd be very happy to review a PR that uses the parts method to determine if the ISBN is really valid, and that renames the existing methods to valid_checksum?.

Thanks!

from lisbn.

Recommend Projects

Question about .valid? method about lisbn HOT 3 OPEN

Comments (3)

Related Issues (4)

Recommend Projects

React

Vue.js

Typescript

TensorFlow

Django

Laravel

D3

Recommend Topics

javascript

web

server

Machine learning

Visualization

Game

Recommend Org

Facebook

Microsoft

Google

Alibaba

D3

Tencent