The call-sites are replaced by direct `typeof`-checks instead, which removes unnecessary function calls. Note that in the `src/`-folder we already had more `typeof`-cases than `isNum`-calls.
These changes were *mostly* done using regular expression search-and-replace, with two exceptions:
- In `Font._charToGlyph` we no longer unconditionally update the `width`, since that seems completely unnecessary.
- In `PDFDocument.documentInfo`, when parsing custom entries, we now do the `typeof`-check once.
This fixes only those warnings, as reported by https://lgtm.com/projects/g/mozilla/pdf.js?mode=list, that make sense (as far as I'm concerned).
Hence this patch leaves the following things unaddressed:
- The "recommendation"-category, since it only complains about unused variables. However, note that all of those cases are purposely included and that there's thus ESLint-disable comments added to explictly allow them.
- The "warning"-category, which still contains two complaints. However, as far as I can tell, they are both false positives.
Given first of all the false positives of the LGTM static analyzer, and secondly that we'd need to add (essentially duplicated) disable-comments for the unused variable cases, it's not entirely clear to me if we actually want to work towards including LGTM in the PDF.js project (e.g. running alongside Travis) or if we should just close issue 11965.
This PR adds typescript definitions from the JSDoc already present.
It adds a new gulp-target 'types' that calls 'tsc', the typescript
compiler, to create the definitions.
To use the definitions, users can simply do the following:
```
import {getDocument, GlobalWorkerOptions} from "pdfjs-dist";
import pdfjsWorker from "pdfjs-dist/build/pdf.worker.entry";
GlobalWorkerOptions.workerSrc = pdfjsWorker;
const pdf = await getDocument("file:///some.pdf").promise;
```
Co-authored-by: @oBusk
Co-authored-by: @tamuratak
This patch makes the follow changes:
- Remove no longer necessary inline `// eslint-disable-...` comments.
- Fix `// eslint-disable-...` comments that Prettier moved down, thus causing new linting errors.
- Concatenate strings which now fit on just one line.
- Fix comments that are now too long.
- Finally, and most importantly, adjust comments that Prettier moved down, since the new positions often is confusing or outright wrong.
In many cases in the code you don't actually care about the index itself, but rather just want to know if something exists in a String/Array or if a String starts in a particular way. With modern JavaScript functionality, it's thus possible to remove a number of existing `indexOf` cases.
*Please note that most of the necessary code adjustments were made in PR 7890.*
ESLint has a number of advantageous properties, compared to JSHint. Among those are:
- The ability to find subtle bugs, thanks to more rules (e.g. PR 7881).
- Much more customizable in general, and many rules allow fine-tuned behaviour rather than the just the on/off rules in JSHint.
- Many more rules that can help developers avoid bugs, and a lot of rules that can be used to enforce a consistent coding style. The latter should be particularily useful for new contributors (and reduce the amount of stylistic review comments necessary).
- The ability to easily specify exactly what rules to use/not to use, as opposed to JSHint which has a default set. *Note:* in future JSHint version some of the rules we depend on will be removed, according to warnings in http://jshint.com/docs/options/, so we wouldn't be able to update without losing lint coverage.
- More easily disable one, or more, rules temporarily. In JSHint this requires using a numeric code, which isn't very user friendly, whereas in ESLint the rule name is simply used instead.
By default there's no rules enabled in ESLint, but there are some default rule sets available. However, to prevent linting failures if we update ESLint in the future, it seemed easier to just explicitly specify what rules we want.
Obviously this makes the ESLint config file somewhat bigger than the old JSHint config file, but given how rarely that one has been updated over the years I don't think that matters too much.
I've tried, to the best of my ability, to ensure that we enable the same rules for ESLint that we had for JSHint. Furthermore, I've also enabled a number of rules that seemed to make sense, both to catch possible errors *and* various style guide violations.
Despite the ESLint README claiming that it's slower that JSHint, https://github.com/eslint/eslint#how-does-eslint-performance-compare-to-jshint, locally this patch actually reduces the runtime for `gulp` lint (by approximately 20-25%).
A couple of stylistic rules that would have been nice to enable, but where our code currently differs to much to make it feasible:
- `comma-dangle`, controls trailing commas in Objects and Arrays (among others).
- `object-curly-spacing`, controls spacing inside of Objects.
- `spaced-comment`, used to enforce spaces after `//` and `/*. (This is made difficult by the fact that there's still some usage of the old preprocessor left.)
Rules that I indend to look into possibly enabling in follow-ups, if it seems to make sense: `no-else-return`, `no-lonely-if`, `brace-style` with the `allowSingleLine` parameter removed.
Useful links:
- http://eslint.org/docs/user-guide/configuring
- http://eslint.org/docs/rules/
