[GH-ISSUE #166] Should get_playlist be adapted to download the full playlist if not stated otherwise? #82

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-27 23:20:45 +03:00 by kerem · 1 comment

kerem commented

2026-02-27 23:20:45 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @JohannesAck on GitHub (Feb 23, 2017).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/spotipy-dev/spotipy/issues/166

As it is right now, get_playlist only sends one request which is limited 100 tracks of the playlist.
I think it might be nice to have it request all parts and concatenate them on its own.

If you agree I'd like to send a pull-request with (currently not in a github repo) code, that adapts the method to do just that.

Originally created by @JohannesAck on GitHub (Feb 23, 2017). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/spotipy-dev/spotipy/issues/166 As it is right now, get_playlist only sends one request which is limited 100 tracks of the playlist. I think it might be nice to have it request all parts and concatenate them on its own. If you agree I'd like to send a pull-request with (currently not in a github repo) code, that adapts the method to do just that.

kerem

2026-02-27 23:20:45 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
question
label

kerem commented

2026-02-27 23:20:45 +03:00

Author

Owner

@stephanebruckert commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2020):

No, this is how API usually work, it's up to the developer to decide how the retrieval of the playlist is handled. You can use offset and limit to iterate over all items, or use next:

results = sp.current_user_saved_tracks()
show_tracks(results)
while results['next']:
    results = sp.next(results)
    show_tracks(results)

@stephanebruckert commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2020): No, this is how API usually work, it's up to the developer to decide how the retrieval of the playlist is handled. You can use `offset` and `limit` to iterate over all items, or use `next`: ``` results = sp.current_user_saved_tracks() show_tracks(results) while results['next']: results = sp.next(results) show_tracks(results) ```

kerem referenced this issue

2026-02-28 00:01:34 +03:00

[PR #82] [CLOSED] fixed a typo #762