Fail early, in modern GENERIC builds, if certain required browser functionality is missing (issue 11762)
#11771
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Snuffleupagus
force-pushed
the
issue-11762
branch
from
00fd2e6
to
d25e463
Compare
|
/botio unittest |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)ReceivedCommand cmd_unittest from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.67.70.0:8877/824b41a17f2cb54/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)ReceivedCommand cmd_unittest from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.215.176.217:8877/d472f857e744818/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)FailedFull output at http://54.215.176.217:8877/d472f857e744818/output.txt Total script time: 2.13 mins
|
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)SuccessFull output at http://54.67.70.0:8877/824b41a17f2cb54/output.txt Total script time: 2.71 mins
|
…unctionality is missing (issue 11762) With two kind of builds now being produced, with/without translation/polyfills, it's unfortunately somewhat easy for users to accidentally pick the wrong one. In the case where a user would attempt to use a modern build of PDF.js in an older browser, such as e.g. IE11, the failure would be immediate when the code is loaded (given the use of unsupported ECMAScript features). However in some browsers/environments, in particular Node.js, a modern PDF.js build may load correctly and thus *appear* to function, only to fail for e.g. certain API calls. To hopefully lessen the support burden, and to try and improve things overall, this patch adds checks to ensure that a modern build of PDF.js cannot be used in browsers/environments which lack native support for critical functionality (such as e.g. `ReadableStream`). Hence we'll fail early, with an error message telling users to pick an ES5-compatible build instead. To ensure that we actually test things better especially w.r.t. usage of the PDF.js library in Node.js environments, the `gulp npm-test` task as used by Node.js/Travis was changed (back) to test an ES5-compatible build. (Since the bots still test the code as-is, without transpilation/polyfills, this shouldn't really be a problem as far as I can tell.) As part of these changes there's now both `gulp lib` and `gulp lib-es5` build targets, similar to e.g. the generic builds, which thanks to some re-factoring only required adding a small amount of code. *Please note:* While it's probably too early to tell if this will be a widespread issue, it's possible that this is the sort of patch that *may* warrant being `git cherry-pick`ed onto the current beta version (v2.4.456).
Snuffleupagus
force-pushed
the
issue-11762
branch
from
d25e463
to
7107045
Compare
Snuffleupagus
changed the title
GENERIC builds, if certain required polyfills are missing (issue 11762)GENERIC builds, if certain required browser functionality is missing (issue 11762)
timvandermeij
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2020
|
Looks like a good change to me; thanks! Note that the Travis CI build did run and pass, but for some reason it's not visible on GitHub. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
With two kind of builds now being produced, with/without translation/polyfills, it's unfortunately somewhat easy for users to accidentally pick the wrong one.
In the case where a user would attempt to use a modern build of PDF.js in an older browser, such as e.g. IE11, the failure would be immediate when the code is loaded (given the use of unsupported ECMAScript features).
However in some browsers/environments, in particular Node.js, a modern PDF.js build may load correctly and thus appear to function, only to fail for e.g. certain API calls. To hopefully lessen the support burden, and to try and improve things overall, this patch adds checks to ensure that a modern build of PDF.js cannot be used in browsers/environments which lack native support for critical functionality (such as e.g.
ReadableStream). Hence we'll fail early, with an error message telling users to pick an ES5-compatible build instead.To ensure that we actually test things better especially w.r.t. usage of the PDF.js library in Node.js environments, the
gulp npm-testtask as used by Node.js/Travis was changed (back) to test an ES5-compatible build.(Since the bots still test the code as-is, without transpilation/polyfills, this shouldn't really be a problem as far as I can tell.)
As part of these changes there's now both
gulp libandgulp lib-es5build targets, similar to e.g. the generic builds, which thanks to some re-factoring only required adding a small amount of code.Please note: While it's probably too early to tell if this will be a widespread issue, it's possible that this is the sort of patch that may warrant being
git cherry-picked onto the current beta version (v2.4.456).Fixes #11762
Much smaller/easier diff with https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/pull/11771/files?w=1