1719761 - [XFA] A table is displayed on 2 pages

Status: NEW

(Firefox :: PDF Viewer, defect, P3)

Description

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: 0c4822cd-513c-4a11-98e4-5184c4c46142.pdf

Note

• When the user loads a specific PDF file in Adobe Reader and then in Nightly and compares pages 2-3, he will notice that a table is incorrectly displayed on both pages and also shows alignment issues.

Affected versions

• Nightly v91.0a1

Affected platforms

• all

Preconditions

• Flip the "pdfjs.enableXfa" pref to true.

Steps to reproduce

1. Launch browser.
2. Load the attached PDF file.
3. Scroll to pages 2-3.

Expected result

• A table is displayed on page 2 and its alignment is correct.

Actual result

• The table is displayed on 2 pages and its alignment is broken.

Regression range

• Not a regression, but an implementation flaw.

Comment 1

[Raluca Popovici, Desktop QA]

The same issue occurs on second pdf attached on pages 2 and 3. (please see the screenshots below)

Comment 2

[Raluca Popovici, Desktop QA]

Attachment: 0b6dd7aa-707e-468f-b5af-ce226036dd99.pdf

Comment 3

[Raluca Popovici, Desktop QA]

Attachment: 2021-07-13_09h10_11.png

Comment 4

[Raluca Popovici, Desktop QA]

Attachment: AdobeR.png

Comment 6

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

This second mentioned issue is actually a regression, most probably the first as well, considering the similarity. Mozregression results:
Bug 1717132 - Update pdf.js to version 2.10.146 r=marco
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D118240

Comment 7

[Emma Malysz]

Hey Brendan, is XFA going to be preffed off for 92? Trying to determine the tracking flags for 92

Comment 8

[Brendan Dahl [:bdahl]]

(In reply to Emma Malysz from comment #7)

Hey Brendan, is XFA going to be preffed off for 92? Trying to determine the tracking flags for 92

We're currently planning to enable in 92.

Comment 9

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Maybe this is important to know. I assume you meant to say "disable in 92"?
This got a little confusing.

Comment 10

[Marco Castelluccio [:marco]]

(In reply to Bodea Daniel [:danibodea] from comment #9)

Maybe this is important to know. I assume you meant to say "disable in 92"?
This got a little confusing.

Yes, it's going to be enabled in 93.

Comment 11

[Marco Castelluccio [:marco]]

We are not planning to fix this specific bug in 93, as it is a minor regression compared to the importance of the fix that caused it (it is not really affecting the usability of the form).

Comment 12

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: 0b6dd7aa-707e-468f-b5af-ce226036dd99.pdf

This issue can also be observed in the attached PDF, page 2-3.

Comment 13

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: another split table canada 48.png

Comment 14

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: 0e648897-1e0f-4fa1-bc4c-1c8b5d9d03e0.pdf

A similar issue is seen in this PDF form as well. Incorrect spacing of sections causes to show some questions on the previous page and some tables to be incorrectly broken.

This is caused by the warning message displayed under the title of the form relating to JavaScript being disabled and lacking validation capabilities; This being considered, the issue could be obsolete or even invalid.

Comment 15

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: incorrect alignment or paragraphing.png

Comment 16

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: 1b8e053b-7643-424c-9b30-9a298e135560.pdf

Also reproduced here, page 3-4.

Comment 17

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: split table in canada 39.png

Comment 18

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: 1cb0393e-4f6f-4937-a421-516461b6f575.pdf

A similar issue is also seen here. It is not about tables being split into separate pages, but I suspect the same underlying issue.

Comment 19

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: incorrectly displayed on a new page.png

Comment 20

[Daniel Bodea [:danibodea]]

Attachment: 1d9f8041-a220-4cc2-8a16-4eac153406b3.pdf

The issue is also seen in this PDF.