It's obviously (a bit) more efficient to return early in `Page.getStructTree`, rather than trying to first "parse" an *empty* structTree-root.
*Somehow I didn't think of this yesterday, but this feels like a much better solution overall; sorry about the churn here!*
Looking at the API, there's no code which actually sends this message. Most likely it's a left-over from a previous version of PR 13069, since the `isPureXfa` parameter is being included in the "GetDoc" message.
To simplify the overall implementation, given that it only applies to the GENERIC-viewer, this patch purposely re-uses the existing `errorWrapper`-functionality to display the message.
While that one is mostly intended for actual *errors*, by re-using it here we considerably reduce the amount of code/complexity necessary for supporting this new warning. It's obviously possible to re-factor/improve this later on, but the patch should do just fine here since it'll indeed inform users (of the GENERIC-viewer) about unverified signatures.
Finally this patch also tweaks the background-color of the `errorWrapper`, making it 20 percent lighter respectively darker (depending on the theme) to make it "stand out" a little bit *less*.[1] While it may perhaps be useful to re-style/re-factor the `errorWrapper`, this patch probably isn't the right place for doing that.
---
[1] Note how in the MOZCENTRAL-viewer, which instead uses the browser notification-bar, we're purposely using a neutral colour to not draw too much attention to the notification-bar.
This is first of all consistent with existing API-methods, where we return `null` when the data in question doesn't exist. Secondly, it should also be (slightly) more efficient since there's less dummy-data that we need to transfer between threads.
Finally, this prevents us from adding an empty/unnecessary span to *every* single page even in documents without any structure tree data.
I (unsurprisingly) managed to forget about handling the case where a "pagesloaded" event arrives *before* the outline has been parsed, in which case we'd not actually enable the `currentOutlineButton` as intended.
Also, in the "pagesloaded" event handler, we should ensure that there's actually any pages loaded since otherwise the "find current outlineItem"-feature doesn't make any sense.
The done callbacks are an outdated mechanism to signal Jasmine that a
unit test is done, mostly in cases where a unit test needed to wait for
an asynchronous operation to complete before doing its assertions.
Nowadays a much better mechanism is in place for that, namely simply
passing an asynchronous function to Jasmine, so we don't need callbacks
anymore (which require more code and may be more difficult to reason
about).
In these particular cases though the done callbacks never had any real
use since nothing asynchronous happens in these places. Synchronous
functions don't need to use done callbacks since Jasmine simply knows
it's done when the function reaches its normal end, so we can safely get
rid of these callbacks. The telltale sign is if the done callback is
used unconditionally at the end of the function.
This is all done in an effort to over time get rid of all callbacks in
the unit test code.
- but don't validate them for now;
- Firefox will display a bar to warn that the signature validation is not supported (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854315)
- almost all (all ?) pdf readers display signatures;
- validation is done in edge but for now it's behind a pref.
It's obviously better and more correct to handle the "pagesloaded" case within `PDFOutlineViewer` *itself*, rather than essentially splitting the logic in two parts and forcing `PDFSidebar` to deal with what should've been handled internally in `PDFOutlineViewer`.
This is what I *should* have done in PR 12777, but for some reason didn't figure out how to implement it well enough back then; sorry about the churn here!
*This patch fixes some technical debt in the viewer.*
Given that most API methods are (purposely) asynchronous, there's always a risk that the viewer could have been `close`d before the requested data arrives.
Lately we've started to check this case before using the data, to prevent errors and/or inconsistent state, however the outline/attachments/layers fetching and rendering is old enough that it pre-dates those checks.
When a PDF is "marked" we now generate a separate DOM that represents
the structure tree from the PDF. This DOM is inserted into the <canvas>
element and allows screen readers to walk the tree and have more
information about headings, images, links, etc. To link the structure
tree DOM (which is empty) to the text layer aria-owns is used. This
required modifying the text layer creation so that marked items are
now tracked.
Scripting, as implemented, requires access to a complete document/viewer in order to work. Hence it doesn't really make sense to keep the `enableScripting`-option on `PDFPageView`-instances.[1]
---
[1] Note that there's the `PDFSinglePageViewer`, which can be used in cases where you want access to all features/functionality of the viewer but only display *one* page at a time.
Note how we purposely don't expose the `AnnotationStorage`-class directly in the official API (see `src/pdf.js`), since trying to use *multiple* ones simultaneously doesn't really make sense (e.g. in the viewer).
Instead we lazily initialize, and cache, just *one* instance via `PDFDocumentProxy.annotationStorage` which should thus be available internally in the API itself without having to be manually passed to various methods.
To support these changes, the `AnnotationStorage`-instance initialization is moved into the `WorkerTransport`-class to allow both `PDFDocumentProxy` and `PDFPageProxy` to access it.
This patch implements the following simplifications:
- Remove the `annotationStorage`-parameter from `PDFDocumentProxy.saveDocument`, since it's already available internally.
Furthermore, while it's currently possible to call that method without an `AnnotationStorage`-instance, that really does *not* make any sense at all. In this case you're effectively reducing `PDFDocumentProxy.saveDocument` to a "regular" `PDFDocumentProxy.getData` call, but with *a lot* more overhead, which was obviously not the intention of the `PDFDocumentProxy.saveDocument`-method.
- Try to discourage third-party users from calling `PDFDocumentProxy.saveDocument` unconditionally, as a replacement for `PDFDocumentProxy.getData` (note the previous point).
- Replace the `annotationStorage`-parameter, in `PDFPageProxy.render`, with a boolean `includeAnnotationStorage`-parameter which simply indicates if the (internally available) `AnnotationStorage`-instance should be used during rendering (e.g. for printing).
- By removing the need to *manually* provide `annotationStorage`-parameters to various API-methods, using the API should become simpler (e.g. for third-parties) since you no longer need to worry about manually fetching and passing around this data.
The reason for the fairly large discrepancy, in the thumbnail quality, between the `draw`/`setImage`-methods is that in the former case we *directly* render the thumbnails at the final size that they'll appear at in the sidebar. In the latter case, we instead downsize the (generally) much larger "regular" pages.
To address this, I'm thus proposing that we let `PDFThumbnailView.draw` render thumbnails at *twice* their intended size and then downsize them to the final size.
Obviously this will increase *peak* memory usage during thumbnail rendering in `PDFThumbnailView.draw`, since doubling the width/height of a `canvas` will lead to its pixel-count increasing by a factor of `4`. Furthermore, since you need four components per pixel (given that it's RGBA-data), this will thus lead to the *temporary* thumbnail `canvas`-sizes increasing by a factor of `16` during rendering. Hence why rendering thumbnails at their "original" scale, i.e. using something like `PDFPageProxy.getViewport({ scale: 1 });`, would be an absolutely terrible idea!
To reduce the size and scope of these changes, I've tried to re-factor and re-use as much of the existing downsizing-implementation already present in `PDFThumbnailView` as possible.
While this will generally *not* make thumbnails rendered by `PDFThumbnailView.draw` look *identical* to those based on the rendered pages (via `PDFThumbnailView.setImage`), it's a considerable improvement as far as I'm concerned and enough to call the issue fixed.
*Please note:* This patch will not lead to *any* additional overhead, in either memory usage or parsing, for thumbnails which are based on the rendered pages.
A loop is less efficient than just overwriting the content, which is what we've generally been using (for years) in other parts of the code-base (see e.g. `BaseViewer` and `PDFThumbnailViewer`).
These properties are always updated/used together, and there's no other methods which depend on just one of them, hence they're changed into local variables instead.
Looking through the history of this code, it seems they were converted *from* local variables and to properties all the way back in PR 2914; however as far as I can tell from that diff it doesn't seem to have been necessary even back then!?
The fontName, as defined in the PDF document, cannot be found in *any* of the "name"-tables in the TrueType Collection font. To work-around that, this patch adds a *fallback* code-path to allow using an approximately matching fontName rather than outright failing.
While this method has only been deprecated in one releases now, the `AnnotationStorage`-functionality is new enough that third-party implementations hopefully don't rely heavily on it just yet. (And removing this quickly should help reduce the likelihood that someone starts using it.)
When removing tasks we're currently forced to *indirectly* iterate through the array, which can be avoided by using a Set instead.
Furthermore, we can also (slightly) modernize the code responsible for initializing the `renderTasks`.
Given that what we actually want is only to keep track of the loadedFont-names, rather than storing any actual data, using an object isn't really necessary here. Furthermore, in the current code, we're also using `in` when checking if the data exists, which is generally less efficient than just checking for the value directly.
