Actually disable TextLayerRenderTask.prototype.#processItems when MAX_TEXT_DIVS_TO_RENDER is reached (PR 18089 follow-up)
#18103
Conversation
…MAX_TEXT_DIVS_TO_RENDER` is reached (PR 18089 follow-up) I broke this accidentally in PR 18089, sorry about that! Note that since `#processItems` is private we can no longer just "replace" the method as was done in PR 18052.
|
/botio test |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)ReceivedCommand cmd_test from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.241.84.105:8877/16022565d59f25d/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)ReceivedCommand cmd_test from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.193.163.58:8877/5fb4ad3c748a1c9/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)FailedFull output at http://54.241.84.105:8877/16022565d59f25d/output.txt Total script time: 27.71 mins
Image differences available at: http://54.241.84.105:8877/16022565d59f25d/reftest-analyzer.html#web=eq.log |
From: Bot.io (Windows)FailedFull output at http://54.193.163.58:8877/5fb4ad3c748a1c9/output.txt Total script time: 42.79 mins
Image differences available at: http://54.193.163.58:8877/5fb4ad3c748a1c9/reftest-analyzer.html#web=eq.log |
|
Thank you for fixing this! I also managed to miss this in the review somehow, but I do like this solution better anyway because the previous approach of replacing the method felt a bit hacky anyway. I do wonder why the unit test for this didn't fail though; do you happen to know why? It might indicate that we lack coverage there somehow, and if so we might want to open a follow-up for that. |
As always, thanks a lot for the review!
The only way to trigger this code-path is by trying to render a textLayer with more than 100000 DOM elements, and nowadays finding such PDF documents are difficult (since we're usually able to coalesce text runs in the worker-thread). |
Ah yes, that was the part I missed here. That explains it then, so we can leave this as-is in terms of testing; thanks! |
I broke this accidentally in PR #18089, sorry about that!
Note that since
#processItemsis private we can no longer just "replace" the method as was done in PR #18052.