Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Prepare a new major version #24

Merged
merged 63 commits into from
Jul 22, 2019
Merged

Prepare a new major version #24

merged 63 commits into from
Jul 22, 2019

Conversation

vbuch
Copy link
Owner

@vbuch vbuch commented May 21, 2019

I'm doing more than one thing at a time. While this is WIP, I'm logging changes in the CHANGELOG. The main feature is the helper to sign a non-pdfkit created document as per #22

@vbuch vbuch changed the title WIP: Prepare a new major version Prepare a new major version May 21, 2019
@vbuch vbuch marked this pull request as ready for review June 25, 2019 15:13
Copy link
Owner Author

@vbuch vbuch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The signatures of pdfkitAddPlaceholder and plainAddPlaceholder differ. They may at least both use Paramater Objects. plainAddPlaceholder accepts its buffer separately.

@vbuch
Copy link
Owner Author

vbuch commented Jul 10, 2019

@maldimirov if/when you have time, could you give the code a glance? If/when you have more time, you could even modify what you don't like :) I'm not asking @samaleksov because he has some other coding snippets to do...

@vbuch vbuch merged commit 29dcd90 into develop Jul 22, 2019
@MohammedEssehemy
Copy link
Contributor

MohammedEssehemy commented Jul 27, 2019

@vbuch could we list what's missing in PDF signature verification to start working on, instead of removing this functionality from the library?

@vbuch
Copy link
Owner Author

vbuch commented Jul 28, 2019

@MohammedEssehemy there were more than one reasons when i descided that.

  1. I had a real usecase when I was giving it an invalid signed doc and it reported it as valid. It was i think a malformed pdf that didnt have the appropriate links for the elements. But since the byte range is extracted without reading the file structure, it was reported as valid.
  2. I am pretty sure people will rarely need both signing and verification in the same project. If youbsplit your services well, you will have separate services for those two actions.
  3. The two processes have totally different dependencies.
  4. I don't have the time to deal with signing alone. I totally cannot support verification.

As I already wrote, the best would be if you created a separate package for that. I would be more than happy to help extract some helpers out into a shared lib so you dont have to rewrite or copy/paste them. Also I would be happy to use it in the testing of this repo. I also think it can be used in the tests of node-forge once available to verify the detached signing.

@MohammedEssehemy
Copy link
Contributor

@vbuch I'll work with my team on separating the package and will inform you once the package is ready, and will tell you about the helpers we need.

@MohammedEssehemy
Copy link
Contributor

@vbuch we have released version 0.1.0 from the library with multiple bug fixes.
it's called verrify-pdf
@Tarek-Essam

@vbuch vbuch deleted the play-with-trailers branch October 29, 2019 09:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants