Hi Jan!

My problem is that in production I use the Phantom PDF recipe, but now because of this locally in dev I need to use the ChromePdf. However, the output looks completely different so I cannot really validate it without releasing to production...

Is there a way to install the Phantom PDF recipe in the local .NET core environment? I created a jsreport folder in the VS project, added the config file with discover: true, install the jsreport-phantom-pdf package, the whole folder is copied to bin at every build, however it still says "phantom-pdf recipe not found" and I cannot debug further...

Perfectly working with the global config for 1.9.8-windows (Should be fine for the low volume). Thank you very much, awesome product!

Actually I figured out the difference: In Playground using 1.9.8 PhantomJS it looks corret. With 2.x it's wrong. In jsreport online with 1.9.8 PhantomJS it looks wrong, but with 1.9.8-windows it looks correct and the same as with 1.9.8 PhantomJS in Playground. Playground uses Windows deployment and the online one Linux?

Update: Shame on me, I just checked the PhantomJS PDF recipe page which states the exact thing. Unix and Windows environments differ. Then I guess really the online and Playground versions are different.

Is there a way to enforce 1.9.8-windows phantomjs when running the remote client from my asp.net webapp?

Hi!

I've been fiddling for a while with my ASP.NET Core webapp, where I send my razor view html to js report online. The interesting thing is, when I run it with the local binary it looks fine, but with the remote client and using jsreport online it looks completely different (different text size, formatting, etc). If I upload the html template and css to jsreport online manually and run it there, it still looks wrong. However, if I use the Playground, it looks fine, the same as with the local binary, with the same HTML and CSS. The settings are the same, everything is the same, what could be wrong?

Here is the playground link which looks good, however copy-pasting the same HTML + Css into jsreport online, it looks bad:

https://playground.jsreport.net/studio/workspace/r1i7mLb2-/6