Having looked at the Acrobat JavaScript specification, see https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/AcrobatDC_js_api_reference.pdf#G5.1963437, I suppose that introducing these two new events is probably the easiest solution overall.
However there's a number of things that, as far as I'm concerned, will help the overall implementation:
- Only dispatch these new events when `enableScripting = true` is set.
- Handle them *separately* from the existing "pagechanging" event dispatching, to avoid too much clutter.
- Don't dispatch either of the events if the page didn't actually change.
- When waiting for pages to render, don't dispatch "pageopen" if the page is no longer active when rendering finishes.
- Ensure that we only use *one* "pagerendered" event listener.
- Ensure that "pageopen" is actually dispatched when the document loads.
I suppose that we *could* avoid adding the "pageclose" event, and use the existing "pagechanging" event instead, however having a separate event might allow more flexibility in the future. (E.g. I don't know if we'll possibly want to dispatch "pageclose" on document close, as mentioned briefly in the specification.)
* move set/clear|Timeout/Interval and crackURL code in pdf.js
* remove the "backdoor" in the proxy (used to dispatch event) and so return the dispatch function in the initializer
* remove listeners if an error occured during sandbox initialization
* add support for alert and prompt in the sandbox
* add a function to eval in the global scope
It appears that the PDF document in [bug 1292316](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292316) now renders "correctly"[1] when compared to e.g. Adobe Reader and PDFium. Most likely this bug was fixed by a *somewhat* recent patch, or patches, to the `XRef.indexObjects` method.
Before just closing [bug 1292316](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292316) as WFM, I figured that it probably can't hurt to add it as a new test-case to avoid accidentally regressing this document in the future.
---
[1] Given that the XRef table is corrupt, and that we're forced to recover, there's generally speaking probably some question as to what actually constitutes "correct" in this case.
Currently only the `gulp unittest` task actually set the time-zone, which means that locally I'm now getting failures with e.g. `gulp test`.
*Please note:* I firmly believe that the unit-tests in question should be re-written, since even with this patch applied there's failures when running http://localhost:8888/test/unit/unit_test.html directly in a browser.
There doesn't seem to be anything definitive about this in
the spec, but from experimenting, it seems acrobat lets
PDFs override the widths of the standard fonts.
Given that the GENERIC default viewer supports opening more than one document, and that a unique scripting-instance is now used for each document, the changes made in this patch seem appropriate.
While it's not entirely clear to me that it's ultimately desirable to use the `pdf.sandbox.js` in the Chromium-extension, given that the MOZCENTRAL-build uses `pdf.scripting.js` directly in a *custom* sandbox, the current state isn't that great since setting `enableScripting = true` with the Chromium-extension will currently fail completely.
Hence this patch, which should at least unbreak things for now.
Since the `close` method has become quite large, this small re-factoring shouldn't hurt (and may also be useful with future changes to the `_initializeJavaScript` method).
I completely missed this previously, but we obviously should remove the scriptElement as well to *really* clean-up everything properly.
Given that there's multiple existing usages of `loadScript` in the code-base, the safest/quickest solution seemed to be to have call-sites opt-in to remove the scriptElement using a new parameter.
This patch *attempts* to actually implement what's described for the `Count`-entry in the PDF specification, see https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/PDF32000_2008.pdf#G11.2095911, which I mostly ignored back in PR 10890 since it seemed unnecessarily complicated[1].
Besides issue 12704, I've also tested a couple of other documents (e.g. the PDF specification) and these changes don't *seem* to break anything else; additional testing would be helpful though!
---
[1] At the time, all PDF documents that I tested worked even with a very simple approach and I thus hoped that it'd would suffice.
