Remove examples that suggest getting type from field.constructor.name
#1287
+2
−4
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
It is not safe/stable to rely on `.constructor.name` in general because minification will mangle the names of constructor functions (to make them as short as possible). This has confused several folks before, as seen in these issues: Hopding#736 Hopding#755 Hopding#933 Hopding#1089 As such, I think we should remove these examples from the codebase.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What?
This PR remove some code-comment examples that suggest getting type of a PDF field via
field.constructor.name.Why?
It is not safe/stable to rely on
.constructor.namein general because minification will mangle the names of constructor functions (to make them as short as possible).This has confused several folks before, as seen in these issues:
#736
#755
#933
#1089
As such, I think we should remove these examples from the codebase.
How?
I've simply removed the code that uses
.constructor.namefrom these examplesTesting?
No testing is necessary for this PR since it only modifies two code comments.
New Dependencies?
No.
Screenshots
N/A
Suggested Reading?
No, but the reading is not relevant for this PR since it only modifies two code comments.
Anything Else?
No
Checklist
The rest of the checklist is not relevant for this PR since it only modifies two code comments.
I added/updated unit tests for my changes.I added/updated integration tests for my changes.I ran the integration tests.I tested my changes in Node, Deno, and the browser.I viewed documents produced with my changes in Adobe Acrobat, Foxit Reader, Firefox, and Chrome.I added/updated doc comments for any new/modified public APIs.My changes work for both new and existing PDF files.I ran the linter on my changes.