- font line height is taken into account by acrobat when it isn't with masterpdfeditor: I extracted a font from a pdf, modified some ascent/descent properties thanks to ttx and the reinjected the font in the pdf: only Acrobat is taken it into account. So in this patch, line heights for some substituted fonts are added.
- it seems that Acrobat is using a line height of 1.2 when the line height in the font is not enough (it's the only way I found to fix correctly bug 1718741).
- don't use flex in wrapper container (which was causing an horizontal overflow in the above bug).
- consequently, the above fixes introduced a lot of small regressions, so in order to see real improvements on reftests, I fixed the regressions in this patch:
- replace margin by padding in some case where padding is a part of a container dimensions;
- remove some flex display: some containers are wrongly sized when rendered;
- set letter-spacing to 0.01px: it helps to be sure that text is not broken because of not enough width in Firefox.
While I don't know if it's technically correct to even do this, it could provide a slightly better out-of-the-box behaviour in browsers that specify (from the PDF.js `l10n`-folder perspective) "incomplete" language codes.
Rather than immediately falling back to English, we'll use a white-list to try and re-write a "partial" language code to a (hopefully) suitable one that matches an existing `l10n`-folder. The disadvantage of this solution is that the list needs to be kept *manually* up-to-date with any changes in the `l10n`-folder, however new locales are added infrequently enough that this should be acceptable.
Fixes 13689 (assuming we actually want/care to do so, otherwise we should just WONTFIX the issue).
With the changes in PR 13687 we're now checking if `target` is defined *twice* in a row, which shouldn't be necessary :-)
(I noticed this when glancing at the unofficial LGTM results; maybe we should re-evalute the decision to not integrate that into the CI.)
When XFA support was added, the size of the *built* `pdf.worker.js` file increased quite a bit. Hence I think that it makes sense to, where easily possible, do what we can to (slightly) reduce the size of the PDF.js library.
The supplemental font data files (added for XFA rendering), containing rescale-factors respectively widths, seem like an excellent candidate here since they're not particularly large in either line-count or file sizes.
In this patch these files are instead merged into a *single* file per font, rather than four different ones, and even with these changes the resulting source files don't become all that large.[1]
For e.g. the `gulp mozcentral` build, this reduces the size of the *built* `pdf.worker.js` file by more than `3 kB`. Given the overall simplicity of the patch, that kind of size decrease definitely seem worthwhile to me.
---
[1] Especially when compared to truly large files such as e.g. `glyphlist.js`, `metrics.js`, and `unicode.js`.
Previously, when we filled image masks we didn't copy over the current transformation,
this caused patterns to be misaligned when painted. Now we create a temporary
canvas with the mask and have the transform copied over and offset it relative to
where the mask would be painted. We also weren't properly offsetting tiling patterns.
This isn't usually noticeable since patters repeat, but in the case of #13561 the pattern
is only drawn once and has to be in the correct position to line up with the mask image.
These fixes broke #11473, but highlighted that we were drawing that correctly by
accident and not correctly handling negative bounding boxes on tiling patterns.
Fixes#6297, #13561, #13441
Partially fixes#1344 (still blurry but boxes are in correct position now)
- Fix a typo in order to open the pdf in issue #13679
- After fixing the fill default color there wer some regressions because of z-index
and when fixing z-index there were some regressions because of borders
- So fix the borders rendering.
*While I cannot guarantee that this will fix the recent intermittents, this patch really shouldn't hurt.*
By setting the Image `src` first, there's a small possibility that the Image is loaded *before* we've had a change to attach the `onload`/`onerror` callbacks which may cause the Promise to remain in a pending state.
Note that prior to PR 13641 we didn't correctly await all image resources to actually load, which could explain the very recent intermittent test-failures.
According to https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v7/configuring-npm/package-json#version, the "version" field is not required[1]:
> If you don't plan to publish your package, the name and version fields are optional.
Hence it shouldn't be necessary to have a "dummy" `version` field in the `package.json` file, and it seems quite unfortunate to have an essentially meaningless entry in that file.[2]
Furthermore, I'd even go as far as suggesting that it's actually doing more harm than good in practice, since it's not uncommon for people to open issues where they simply quote the `package.json`-entry when filling out the ISSUE_TEMPLATE thus causing confusion as to which *exact* version is actually used.
Unless I'm misremembering, I believe that the only reason for adding the `version` field was that is was necessary in order for things to work back when testing was run on Travis.
Now we're using GitHub Actions instead, where things seem to work just find even without a `version` field; hence why I think it makes sense to remove this.
---
[1] Please note that this patch doesn't affect the `pdfjs-dist` package, since the `package.json` file used there is created in `gulpfile.js` during building.
[2] Trying to, automatically, update the `version` field on *every* commit really doesn't seem worth it to me.
