mirror of
https://github.com/probberechts/soccerdata.git
synced 2026-04-25 10:05:53 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #589] [Match History] Different League URL for custom leagues #106
Labels
No labels
ESPN
FBref
FotMob
MatchHistory
SoFIFA
Sofascore
WhoScored
WhoScored
bug
build
common
dependencies
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
invalid
performance
pull-request
question
question
removal
understat
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/soccerdata#106
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @TK5-Tim on GitHub (May 22, 2024).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/probberechts/soccerdata/issues/589
After adding the Swiss first league to the package as a custom league dictionary. I tried to pull the Match history.
I noticed an issue with the seasons argument in the MatchHistory instance.
For smaller league like the Swiss league the whole match history is put into one file. That also means that the URL is different.
Instead of the expected URL
https://www.football-data.co.uk/mmz4281/2324/SWZ.csvThe actual URL is:
https://www.football-data.co.uk/new/SWZ.csvwould it make sense to have the possibility to get the different URL or is the data too different anyway?
@probberechts commented on GitHub (May 27, 2024):
I had a quick look and the smaller leagues seem to contain a subset of the data (with different column headers) of the bigger leagues. This means that it should be possible to merge them. Basically, you would have to update the MatchHistory.read_games method to check whether the requested league is a smaller league and if so
I do not have plans to implement this myself, but if anyone would be interested in taking a stab at it, I would be happy to review it.
@TK5-Tim commented on GitHub (May 29, 2024):
Thanks a lot for the breakdown. I'm hoping to find the time to take a stab at this.