2020-12-08 02:15:24 +09:00
|
|
|
/* Copyright 2020 Mozilla Foundation
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
* limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
[api-major] Output JavaScript modules in the builds (issue 10317)
At this point in time all browsers, and also Node.js, support standard `import`/`export` statements and we can now finally consider outputting modern JavaScript modules in the builds.[1]
In order for this to work we can *only* use proper `import`/`export` statements throughout the main code-base, and (as expected) our Node.js support made this much more complicated since both the official builds and the GitHub Actions-based tests must keep working.[2]
One remaining issue is that the `pdf.scripting.js` file cannot be built as a JavaScript module, since doing so breaks PDF scripting.
Note that my initial goal was to try and split these changes into a couple of commits, however that unfortunately didn't really work since it turned out to be difficult for smaller patches to work correctly and pass (all) tests that way.[3]
This is a classic case of every change requiring a couple of other changes, with each of those changes requiring further changes in turn and the size/scope quickly increasing as a result.
One possible "issue" with these changes is that we'll now only output JavaScript modules in the builds, which could perhaps be a problem with older tools. However it unfortunately seems far too complicated/time-consuming for us to attempt to support both the old and modern module formats, hence the alternative would be to do "nothing" here and just keep our "old" builds.[4]
---
[1] The final blocker was module support in workers in Firefox, which was implemented in Firefox 114; please see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import#browser_compatibility
[2] It's probably possible to further improve/simplify especially the Node.js-specific code, but it does appear to work as-is.
[3] Having partially "broken" patches, that fail tests, as part of the commit history is *really not* a good idea in general.
[4] Outputting JavaScript modules was first requested almost five years ago, see issue 10317, and nowadays there *should* be much better support for JavaScript modules in various tools.
2023-09-28 20:00:10 +09:00
|
|
|
import { getPdfFilenameFromUrl } from "pdfjs-lib";
|
2020-12-08 02:15:24 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-06-20 19:40:48 +09:00
|
|
|
async function docProperties(pdfDocument) {
|
[api-minor] Move the viewer scripting initialization/handling into a new `PDFScriptingManager` class
The *main* purpose of this patch is to allow scripting to be used together with the viewer components, note the updated "simpleviewer"/"singlepageviewer" examples, in addition to the full default viewer.
Given how the scripting functionality is currently implemented in the default viewer, trying to re-use this with the standalone viewer components would be *very* hard and ideally you'd want it to work out-of-the-box.
For an initial implementation, in the default viewer, of the scripting functionality it probably made sense to simply dump all of the code in the `app.js` file, however that cannot be used with the viewer components.
To address this, the functionality is moved into a new `PDFScriptingManager` class which can thus be handled in the same way as all other viewer components (and e.g. be passed to the `BaseViewer`-implementations).
Obviously the scripting functionality needs quite a lot of data, during its initialization, and for the default viewer we want to maintain the current way of doing the lookups since that helps avoid a number of redundant API-calls.
To that end, the `PDFScriptingManager` implementation accepts (optional) factories/functions such that we can maintain the current behaviour for the default viewer. For the viewer components specifically, fallback code-paths are provided to ensure that scripting will "just work"[1].
Besides moving the viewer handling of the scripting code to its own file/class, this patch also takes the opportunity to re-factor the functionality into a number of helper methods to improve overall readability[2].
Note that it's definitely possible that the `PDFScriptingManager` class could be improved even further (e.g. for general re-use), since it's still heavily tailored to the default viewer use-case, however I believe that this patch is still a good step forward overall.
---
[1] Obviously *all* the relevant document properties might not be available in the viewer components use-case (e.g. the various URLs), but most things should work just fine.
[2] The old `PDFViewerApplication._initializeJavaScript` method, where everything was simply inlined, have over time (in my opinion) become quite large and somewhat difficult to *easily* reason about.
2021-03-05 08:15:18 +09:00
|
|
|
const url = "",
|
2024-02-02 21:02:31 +09:00
|
|
|
baseUrl = url.split("#", 1)[0];
|
2021-05-16 17:58:34 +09:00
|
|
|
// eslint-disable-next-line prefer-const
|
|
|
|
let { info, metadata, contentDispositionFilename, contentLength } =
|
|
|
|
await pdfDocument.getMetadata();
|
[api-minor] Move the viewer scripting initialization/handling into a new `PDFScriptingManager` class
The *main* purpose of this patch is to allow scripting to be used together with the viewer components, note the updated "simpleviewer"/"singlepageviewer" examples, in addition to the full default viewer.
Given how the scripting functionality is currently implemented in the default viewer, trying to re-use this with the standalone viewer components would be *very* hard and ideally you'd want it to work out-of-the-box.
For an initial implementation, in the default viewer, of the scripting functionality it probably made sense to simply dump all of the code in the `app.js` file, however that cannot be used with the viewer components.
To address this, the functionality is moved into a new `PDFScriptingManager` class which can thus be handled in the same way as all other viewer components (and e.g. be passed to the `BaseViewer`-implementations).
Obviously the scripting functionality needs quite a lot of data, during its initialization, and for the default viewer we want to maintain the current way of doing the lookups since that helps avoid a number of redundant API-calls.
To that end, the `PDFScriptingManager` implementation accepts (optional) factories/functions such that we can maintain the current behaviour for the default viewer. For the viewer components specifically, fallback code-paths are provided to ensure that scripting will "just work"[1].
Besides moving the viewer handling of the scripting code to its own file/class, this patch also takes the opportunity to re-factor the functionality into a number of helper methods to improve overall readability[2].
Note that it's definitely possible that the `PDFScriptingManager` class could be improved even further (e.g. for general re-use), since it's still heavily tailored to the default viewer use-case, however I believe that this patch is still a good step forward overall.
---
[1] Obviously *all* the relevant document properties might not be available in the viewer components use-case (e.g. the various URLs), but most things should work just fine.
[2] The old `PDFViewerApplication._initializeJavaScript` method, where everything was simply inlined, have over time (in my opinion) become quite large and somewhat difficult to *easily* reason about.
2021-03-05 08:15:18 +09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!contentLength) {
|
|
|
|
const { length } = await pdfDocument.getDownloadInfo();
|
|
|
|
contentLength = length;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
...info,
|
|
|
|
baseURL: baseUrl,
|
|
|
|
filesize: contentLength,
|
2021-03-16 19:56:31 +09:00
|
|
|
filename: contentDispositionFilename || getPdfFilenameFromUrl(url),
|
[api-minor] Move the viewer scripting initialization/handling into a new `PDFScriptingManager` class
The *main* purpose of this patch is to allow scripting to be used together with the viewer components, note the updated "simpleviewer"/"singlepageviewer" examples, in addition to the full default viewer.
Given how the scripting functionality is currently implemented in the default viewer, trying to re-use this with the standalone viewer components would be *very* hard and ideally you'd want it to work out-of-the-box.
For an initial implementation, in the default viewer, of the scripting functionality it probably made sense to simply dump all of the code in the `app.js` file, however that cannot be used with the viewer components.
To address this, the functionality is moved into a new `PDFScriptingManager` class which can thus be handled in the same way as all other viewer components (and e.g. be passed to the `BaseViewer`-implementations).
Obviously the scripting functionality needs quite a lot of data, during its initialization, and for the default viewer we want to maintain the current way of doing the lookups since that helps avoid a number of redundant API-calls.
To that end, the `PDFScriptingManager` implementation accepts (optional) factories/functions such that we can maintain the current behaviour for the default viewer. For the viewer components specifically, fallback code-paths are provided to ensure that scripting will "just work"[1].
Besides moving the viewer handling of the scripting code to its own file/class, this patch also takes the opportunity to re-factor the functionality into a number of helper methods to improve overall readability[2].
Note that it's definitely possible that the `PDFScriptingManager` class could be improved even further (e.g. for general re-use), since it's still heavily tailored to the default viewer use-case, however I believe that this patch is still a good step forward overall.
---
[1] Obviously *all* the relevant document properties might not be available in the viewer components use-case (e.g. the various URLs), but most things should work just fine.
[2] The old `PDFViewerApplication._initializeJavaScript` method, where everything was simply inlined, have over time (in my opinion) become quite large and somewhat difficult to *easily* reason about.
2021-03-05 08:15:18 +09:00
|
|
|
metadata: metadata?.getRaw(),
|
|
|
|
authors: metadata?.get("dc:creator"),
|
|
|
|
numPages: pdfDocument.numPages,
|
|
|
|
URL: url,
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-08 02:15:24 +09:00
|
|
|
class GenericScripting {
|
2020-12-20 20:24:26 +09:00
|
|
|
constructor(sandboxBundleSrc) {
|
[api-major] Output JavaScript modules in the builds (issue 10317)
At this point in time all browsers, and also Node.js, support standard `import`/`export` statements and we can now finally consider outputting modern JavaScript modules in the builds.[1]
In order for this to work we can *only* use proper `import`/`export` statements throughout the main code-base, and (as expected) our Node.js support made this much more complicated since both the official builds and the GitHub Actions-based tests must keep working.[2]
One remaining issue is that the `pdf.scripting.js` file cannot be built as a JavaScript module, since doing so breaks PDF scripting.
Note that my initial goal was to try and split these changes into a couple of commits, however that unfortunately didn't really work since it turned out to be difficult for smaller patches to work correctly and pass (all) tests that way.[3]
This is a classic case of every change requiring a couple of other changes, with each of those changes requiring further changes in turn and the size/scope quickly increasing as a result.
One possible "issue" with these changes is that we'll now only output JavaScript modules in the builds, which could perhaps be a problem with older tools. However it unfortunately seems far too complicated/time-consuming for us to attempt to support both the old and modern module formats, hence the alternative would be to do "nothing" here and just keep our "old" builds.[4]
---
[1] The final blocker was module support in workers in Firefox, which was implemented in Firefox 114; please see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import#browser_compatibility
[2] It's probably possible to further improve/simplify especially the Node.js-specific code, but it does appear to work as-is.
[3] Having partially "broken" patches, that fail tests, as part of the commit history is *really not* a good idea in general.
[4] Outputting JavaScript modules was first requested almost five years ago, see issue 10317, and nowadays there *should* be much better support for JavaScript modules in various tools.
2023-09-28 20:00:10 +09:00
|
|
|
this._ready = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
|
|
|
|
const sandbox =
|
|
|
|
typeof PDFJSDev === "undefined"
|
|
|
|
? import(sandboxBundleSrc) // eslint-disable-line no-unsanitized/method
|
2023-10-15 18:29:53 +09:00
|
|
|
: __non_webpack_import__(sandboxBundleSrc);
|
[api-major] Output JavaScript modules in the builds (issue 10317)
At this point in time all browsers, and also Node.js, support standard `import`/`export` statements and we can now finally consider outputting modern JavaScript modules in the builds.[1]
In order for this to work we can *only* use proper `import`/`export` statements throughout the main code-base, and (as expected) our Node.js support made this much more complicated since both the official builds and the GitHub Actions-based tests must keep working.[2]
One remaining issue is that the `pdf.scripting.js` file cannot be built as a JavaScript module, since doing so breaks PDF scripting.
Note that my initial goal was to try and split these changes into a couple of commits, however that unfortunately didn't really work since it turned out to be difficult for smaller patches to work correctly and pass (all) tests that way.[3]
This is a classic case of every change requiring a couple of other changes, with each of those changes requiring further changes in turn and the size/scope quickly increasing as a result.
One possible "issue" with these changes is that we'll now only output JavaScript modules in the builds, which could perhaps be a problem with older tools. However it unfortunately seems far too complicated/time-consuming for us to attempt to support both the old and modern module formats, hence the alternative would be to do "nothing" here and just keep our "old" builds.[4]
---
[1] The final blocker was module support in workers in Firefox, which was implemented in Firefox 114; please see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import#browser_compatibility
[2] It's probably possible to further improve/simplify especially the Node.js-specific code, but it does appear to work as-is.
[3] Having partially "broken" patches, that fail tests, as part of the commit history is *really not* a good idea in general.
[4] Outputting JavaScript modules was first requested almost five years ago, see issue 10317, and nowadays there *should* be much better support for JavaScript modules in various tools.
2023-09-28 20:00:10 +09:00
|
|
|
sandbox
|
|
|
|
.then(pdfjsSandbox => {
|
|
|
|
resolve(pdfjsSandbox.QuickJSSandbox());
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.catch(reject);
|
2020-12-08 02:15:24 +09:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
async createSandbox(data) {
|
|
|
|
const sandbox = await this._ready;
|
|
|
|
sandbox.create(data);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
async dispatchEventInSandbox(event) {
|
|
|
|
const sandbox = await this._ready;
|
2022-01-09 01:57:06 +09:00
|
|
|
setTimeout(() => sandbox.dispatchEvent(event), 0);
|
2020-12-08 02:15:24 +09:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
async destroySandbox() {
|
|
|
|
const sandbox = await this._ready;
|
|
|
|
sandbox.nukeSandbox();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-06-20 19:40:48 +09:00
|
|
|
export { docProperties, GenericScripting };
|