A user encountered a response that looks like:
URL: some gibberish
Headers:
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="something.pdf"
In the Chrome extension, the "attachment" content disposition is almost
always ignored (i.e. the PDF Viewer will try to view it anyway). So we
need to fall back to the Content-Disposition header if the URL check is
inconclusive.
If interactive forms are enabled, then the display layer takes care of
rendering the form elements. There is no need to draw them on the canvas
as well. This also leads to issues when values are prefilled, because
the text fields are transparent, so the contents that have been rendered
onto the canvas will be visible too.
We address this issue by passing the `renderInteractiveForms` parameter
to the render task and handling it when the page is rendered (i.e., when
the canvas is rendered).
This patch improves the unit tests by testing the support for read-only
and multiline fields. Moreover, we add a reference test to ensure that
the text widgets are not only rendered, but also that their contents are
styled properly.
Finally, we perform minor improvements in `src/core/annotation.js`, for
example adding missing comments.
For embedded Type1 fonts without included `ToUnicode`/`Encoding` data, attempt to improve text selection by using the `builtInEncoding` to amend the `toUnicode` map (issue 6901, issue 7182, issue 7217, bug 917796, bug 1242142)
I intended to provide proper benchmarking results here, as outlined in https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/wiki/Benchmarking-your-changes, but after wasting a couple of hours over the weekend getting weird results I gave up.
It appears that there's a lot of, i.e. way too much, variance between subsequent runs of `text` tests for the results to be meaningful.
(Previously I've only benchmarked `eq` tests, so I don't know if the `text` tests has never worked well or if it's a newer problem. For reference, please see the results of back-to-back benchmark runs on the current `master` with a *very* simple manifest file: [link here].)
Instead I used `console.time/timeEnd` in `appendText` and `expandTextDivs` to be able to compare the performance with/without the patch. The entire viewer was (skip-cache) reloaded between measurements, and the result are available here: [link here].
Given the troubles I've had with benchmarking, I've not yet computed any statistics on the results (e.g. mean, variance, confidence intervals, and so on).
However, just by looking at the data I think it's safe to say that this patch first of all doesn't seem to regress the current performance. Secondly it certainly looks *very* likely that this patch actually improves the performance, especially for the one-glyph-per-text-div case (cf. issue 7224).
Re: issue 7584.
Note that in `parseCodestream` I purposly left the `throw new Error` instances inside of the `try` block, since we don't want to throw any `Errors` while in recovery mode.
Finally somewhat unrelated to the rest of the patch, but I moved the `doNotRecover` variable declaration outside of the `try` block to avoid variable hoisting given that it's accessed inside the `catch` block.
Note that in order to prevent any possible issues, this patch does *not* try to amend the `toUnicode` data for Type1 fonts that contain either `ToUnicode` or `Encoding` entries in the font dictionary.
Fixes, or at least improves, issues/bugs such as e.g. 6658, 6901, 7182, 7217, bug 917796, bug 1242142.
Moreover, we refactor the code a bit to extract code that is shared
between the two branches and we only apply text alignment (and create
the array) when it is actually defined, since it's optional and left is
already the default.
I've started to look into how we can fix issue 7580, but quickly became worried that fixing it could easily mean that we'd trade one fixed PDF file for a multitude of broken ones.
Hence I started going through the history of the code that choose the fallback encoding, and noticed that it has been changed a number of times over the years to deal with various cases of weirdness/errors in non-embedded fonts.
To my relief it turned out that almost all the PRs, please see a possibly incomplete [list here], that changed this code actually included `eq` test-cases.
However, in one case it appears that a PR missed to add a test-case. Furthermore since the fallback encoding may also be the only source for creating a `toUnicode` map, changing the encoding could possibly regress only the text-selection despite a PDF file still rendering correctly.
Therefore, this PR adds one new `eq` test, and also a number of additional `text` tests for PDF files already present in the test-suite.
Note that it's obviously possible that there's a certain overlap between the added tests, but I'd be *a whole lot* more concerned with causing regressions.
Don't duplicate the first entry in the `charCodeToGlyphId` map for CIDFontType2 fonts with a `CIDToGIDMap` that already mapped the first entry to a non-zero `glyphId` (issue 7544)
There's really no good reason to attempt to adjust the `max-height` of the `SecondaryToolbar` when it's not visible, so let's not do that anymore.
Also, we can listen for the `resize` event in `SecondaryToolbar`, to avoid having to manually call the `max-height` adjust function from various event handlers in `app.js`. Please note that by always adjusting the `max-height` when the toolbar is opened we no longer need the `localized` event, since it was mainly used to set a correct inital `max-height` value.
Please note that this is a hack, but I think that it should be OK for now to atleast get the preference landed. Refer to the code comment for further information.
Re: issue 7584 and PR 7586.
This patch is the first step towards implementing support for
interactive forms (AcroForms). It makes it possible to render text
widget annotations exactly like Adobe Reader/Acrobat.
Everything we implement for AcroForms is disabled by default using a
preference, mainly because it is not ready to use yet, but has to
implemented in many steps to avoid complexity. The preference allows us
to work with the code while not exposing the behavior by default. Mainly
storing entered values and printing them is still absent, which would be
minimal requirements for enabling this by default.
This patch is yet another instalment in the (never ending) series of patches for PDF files that specify completely incorrect Type/Subtype for its fonts. In this case Type1/Type1C, when in fact OpenType would have been correct.
Fixes 7598.
Currently, we only support text widget annotations (field type 'Tx')
partially. However, the current code does not make this entirely clear
and does not provide a warning when an unsupported field type is
encountered, making it harder to determine why rendering fails.
Moreover, in the display layer we make no distinction between the
various types of widget annotations, causing the code for text widget
annotations to also be executed for other types of widget annotations in
a fallback situation.
This patch improves the structure of the widget annotation code. In the
core layer, we use the same structure we use for non-widget annotations
in the factory and provide a clear warning when an unsupported type is
encountered. In the display layer, we do the same and split the
`WidgetAnnotationElement` class into two classes, namely
`TextWidgetAnnotationElement` for text widget annotations and
`WidgetAnnotationElement` for other unsupported annotations as a
fallback. From this it clear that we only support text widget
annotations and nothing else.
In the case where the document was destroyed, we were rejecting the `Promise` in `JpegDecode` with a string instead of an `Error`. The patch also brings the wording more inline with other such rejections.
Use the `isInt` utility function when validating the `pageNumber` parameter in `WorkerTransport_getPage`, to make it more obvious what's actually happening. There's also a couple more unit-tests added, to ensure that we always fail in the expected way.
Finally, we can simplify the rejection handling in `WorkerTransport_getPageIndexByRef` somewhat. (Note that the only reason for using `catch` here is that since the promise is rejected on the worker side, the `reason` becomes a string instead of an `Error` which is why we "re-reject" on the display side.)
