Given the number of parameters, and the fact that many of them are booleans, the call-sites are no longer particularly easy to read and understand. Furthermore, this slightly improves the formatting of the JSDoc-comment, since it needed updating as part of these changes anyway.
Finally, this removes an unnecessary `numViews === 0` check from `getVisibleElements`, since that should be *very* rare and more importantly that the `binarySearchFirstItem` function already has a fast-path for that particular case.
This patch addresses a review comment, which pointed out that we should *also* handle the pageNumber-input, from PR 12493.
Given that a user *manually* changing pages using the pageNumber-input, on the toolbar, could be regarded as a pretty strong indication of user-intent w.r.t. navigation in the document, hence I suppose that updating the browser history in this case as well probably won't hurt.
All of these methods will, in one way or another, cause e.g. scrolling or zooming to occur and consequently they don't really make sense unless there's an active PDF document. Especially since all of these methods end up calling into a `BaseViewer`-instance, which already contains similar early returns in essentially all of it's methods and setters.
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.
Given that we're now accessing certain API-functionality *directly* in this file, e.g. the AnnotationStorage and Optional Content configuration, ensuring that there's not a version mismatch definitely seem like a good idea to prevent any *subtle* future bugs.
Ensure that these tooltip-only Annotations are handled as "internalLink"s, to ensure that they behave as expected in PresentationMode (e.g. they should still use a `pointer`-cursor).
Ensure that `PDFLinkService.getDestinationHash` won't create links with empty hashes, since those don't really make a lot of sense in general (this improves things for tooltip-only Annotations).
This PDF file can be used for testing: http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/pdfcomment/doc/pdfcomment.pdf#page=14
- Return early in `PDFViewerApplication._initializeJavaScript` for PDF documents without any `fieldObjects`, which is the vast majority of all documents, to prevent errors when trying to parse a non-existent object.
- Similar to the other `PDFViewerApplication._initialize*` methods, ignore the `fieldObjects` if the document was closed before the data resolved.
- Fix the JSDoc comment for the `generateRandomStringForSandbox` helper function, since there's currently a bit too much copy-and-paste going on :-)
- Change `FirefoxScripting` to a class with static methods, which is consistent with the surrounding code in `web/firefoxcom.js`.
There's no compelling reason to update this property *manually* in multiple places, since that's error-prone with any future code changes, given that `_updateInternalState` is always called just before anyway.
While the referenced issue could very well be seen as an edge-case, this patch adds support for updating of the browser history when interacting with the thumbnails in the sidebar (assuming we want to do this).
The main reason for adding the history implementation in the first place, was to simplify navigating back to a previous position in the document when named/explicit destinations are used (e.g. when clicking on "links" or when using the outline in the sidebar).
As such, it never really crossed by mind to update the browser history when the thumbnails are used. However, a user clicking on thumbnails could be regarded as a pretty strong indication of user-intent w.r.t. navigation in the document, hence I suppose that updating the browser history in this particular case probably won't hurt.
This modernizes and improves the code, by using `async`/`await` and by extracting the helper function to its own method.
To hopefully avoid confusion, given the next patch, the method is also re-named to `goToDestination` to make is slightly clearer what it actually does.
Given that we're no longer using SystemJS to load the `web/` files, see PR 11919, there's nothing that prevents us from using standard `ìmport` statements in this file.
Obviously it's still necessary to load part of the code conditionally on the build type, however this still allows us to clean-up and simplify at least some of this file.
The `debugger`-statement would only, potentially, make sense during development and we thus want to prevent it from being accidentally included when landing code.
The `alert`, `confirm`, and `prompt` functions should generally be avoided, with the few intended cases manually allowed.
Please find additional details about the ESLint rules at:
- https://eslint.org/docs/rules/no-debugger
- https://eslint.org/docs/rules/no-alert
In the rest of the viewer code-base, we purposely don't treat `RenderingCancelledException`s as actual errors (since they aren't) and consequently we never log them.
Hence it makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, to simply treat `RenderingCancelledException`s the same way when printing in Firefox.
While I don't print a whole lot, I cannot remember seeing these "errors" logged when printing until *very* recently[1]. Given that the browser print functionality and UI, in Firefox, is under active development it's certainly possible that there's some recent changes to the related timings which make `RenderingCancelledException`s more likely now.
---
[1] Interestingly, only some PDF documents seem to be affected as well; I'm able to reproduce this pretty consistently by opening https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/ziv/pdf/printpay_flyer.pdf in Firefox and then repeating the following sequence:
Clicking on the PDF.js print button, and then cancelling printing.
This should be helpful to easily determine the *exact* version of the viewer itself, when looking at a *built* `web/viewer.js` file.
Note that we're already including this information in other built files, such as e.g. `pdf.js`, `pdf.worker.js`, `pdf_viewer.js`, and `pdf.image_decoders.js`.
This adds a new `PDFViewerApplication.triggerPrinting` method, which takes care of checking that printing is actually supported before calling `window.print`, to remove the need to duplicate that code in multiple places.
Also, removes the `PDFViewerApplication.printing` getter since it's not really necessary any more.
For now we need to use a Babel-plugin, since part of our build system doesn't support this fully (e.g. Babel-loader, Webpack 4.x, and SystemJS).
While the `?.` operator will thus always be transpiled by Babel, even in modern builds, simply supporting it for development purposes seems like a step in the right direction.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Optional_chaining
Given how those are used, there *should* not be any situation in which e.g. `undefined` is ever returned. However, actually checking that the pageView/thumbnail is defined cannot hurt.
Also, re-factor `webViewerPageRendered` slightly since the `pageView` is no longer unconditionally necessary after the previous patches; note in particular that the thumbnails will only be updated when the sidebar *and* the thumbnailView is visible.
Finally, fixes a bug in `webViewerPageChanging` whereby an empty string would not be treated as a valid pageLabel and instead be replaced by `null`.
Given that the default viewer only uses the "page stats" when debugging is enabled, it seems much simpler and more straightforward to simply query the API *directly* when this information is actually required. That way, there's a bit less information that needs to be stored/updated on each `PDFPageView`-instance.
Finally, since the `EventBus` now exists, we no longer need to handle the "page stats"-case in the regular listeners in `web/app.js`, but can instead add special "page stats"-listeners only when debugging is enabled.
The way that rendering errors are handled in `PDFPageView` is *very* old, and predates e.g. the introduction of the `EventBus` by several years.
Hence we should be able to simplify things a bit here, by including the Error (when it exists) in the "pagerendered" event and thus avoid having to reach into `PDFPageView` for it.
Note that a `RenderingCancelledException` *should* never actually reach this method, but better safe than sorry I suppose, considering that both `PDFPageView` and `PDFThumbnailView` are already catching `RenderingCancelledException`s since those are *not* Errors in the normal sense of the word.
For years the loadingBar and sidebarContainer has had a slightly annoying and unfortunate dependency, since the loadingBar width follows the main toolbar width[1].
To prevent the loadingBar from obscuring part of the sidebarContainer, especially the buttons, the sidebarContainer is thus moved down when the loadingBar is visible. This has always annoyed me[2], since it means that the buttons in the sidebar may thus move vertically which seems bad from a UX perspective.
Now that CSS variables are available in all supported browsers[3] however, fixing the loadingBar/sidebarContainer overlap issues are finally easy. The solution is simply to let the sidebarContainer, when visible, control the loadingBar left position (right in RTL locales) in the same way that the viewerContainer is handled. Hence the sidebarContainer can now have a *consistent* vertical postition, without the loadingBar overlapping it.
---
[1] Obviously the right position (left in RTL locales) of the loadingBar is, potentially, reduced to account for a scrollbar.
[2] I've tried to fix this a few times, but it always seemed like more trouble than it's worth.
[3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Using_CSS_custom_properties#Browser_compatibility
The `getVisibleElements` helper function currently requires the viewerContainer to be absolutely positioned; possibly fixing this is tracked in issue 11626.
Without `position: absolute;` set, in the CSS, there's a number of things that won't work correctly such as e.g.
- Determining which pages are currently visible, thus forcing all of them to render on load and increasing resource usage significantly; note https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions#allthepages
- Scrolling pages into view, by using the `BaseViewer.currentPageNumber` setter or similar.
Based on the number of opened issues over the years, the fact that `position: absolute;` is required has shown to be something that users can very easily overlook unless they follow e.g. the `simpleviewer` example to the letter.
Hence, to improve things until such a time that issue 11626 is fixed, we'll now refuse to initialize a `BaseViewer` instance unless the `container` has the required CSS set. (Forcibly setting `position: absolute;` on the viewerContainer element is bound to cause significantly more issues/confusion, hence the current approach of throwing an Error.)
This reverts commit 9e4552d792 for causing the sidebar to become too narrow when the entire viewer is resized.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Load the viewer.
2. Open the sidebar.
3. Resize the sidebar, making it wider.
4. Resize the entire viewer, i.e. the browser window, making it *narrower* than 400 pixels.
**Expected result:**
The sidebar width is clamped at 200 pixels.
**Actual result:**
The sidebar becomes too narrow.
The cause of this bug is, in hindsight, quite obvious since the `clamp` helper function implicitly assumes that the `min`/`max` arguments are correctly sorted. At viewer widths *below* 400 pixels, that assumption is broken which explains the bug.
Given that the outlineView/attachmentsView/layersView all share a common base-class and CSS rules, see PRs 12169 and 12170, the names of the CSS variables in question feels slightly strange now.
This patch purposely starts small, by removing IE-specific code from various JS/CSS files in the `web/` folder.
There's obviously lots of potential for additional clean-up, especially the removal of no longer necessary polyfills in `src/shared/compatibility.js`, however that will require some care considering that certain polyfills may also be necessary for e.g. Node.js or the Chromium-extension as well.
Generally speaking, once we start removing polyfills it's probably a good idea to consult the compatibility information on https://developer.mozilla.org/ and also https://caniuse.com/ first. (Deciding on the lowest supported Chromium version, for the extension, would also seem like a good idea.)
This reverts commit 2a0de0b66b.
I can no longer reproduce these issues locally, and if ad blockers are still interfering with this functionality we really ought to pursue a mozilla-central solution to the problem instead. (Also, I'm no longer getting an "Open with Firefox"-option in the "Open with"-dialog making the PDF attachments experience worse for all users.)
This should help prevent future issues, caused by the user omitting the `viewer` option and/or providing an incorrect `container` option, when initializing a `BaseViewer`-instance.
This fixes a set of issues described in Mozilla bug 1662426[1].
In particular, once the print callback fails once (because the printing
operation has been canceled in Gecko / replaced by a newer one, for example) it
can't be re-invoked.
This patch fixes it by properly cancelling the render task if it throws, or if
the print callback is called again while ongoing.
[1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1662426
All of the core/display functionality needed to support this already exists, we simply need to handle these named actions in the viewer and the buttons will "just" work.
Unfortunately there's not really any good way of testing this, but given the size and scope of the patch that's hopefully OK.
