Issue 623 : Make BaseFont subset prefix generation deterministic#627
Merged
asturio merged 1 commit intoLibrePDF:masterfrom Dec 14, 2021
Merged
Issue 623 : Make BaseFont subset prefix generation deterministic#627asturio merged 1 commit intoLibrePDF:masterfrom
asturio merged 1 commit intoLibrePDF:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Added a configurable SecureRandom to BaseFont class to make a possibility to generate a deterministic subset prefix.
By default the generated String is still random.
Related Issue: #623
Unit test is provided within the commit. Tested within our implementation using a FixedSecureRandom from BC, and the generated subset prefix is deterministic, as expected.
Some comments:
I do not understand a reason for the method PdfReader.shuffleSubsetNames(). To my opinion, it could be removed, as if you remove it from code, it does not brake any unit tests. Nevertheless, I left this method with the old behavior for backward compatibility.
My solution is pretty simple and straight-forward, so if you have better ideas how it could be implemented, please feel free to make the changes in my original PR.
Best regards,
Aleksandr.