Bug 101776

Comment on attachment 132658 [details] [review]
patch adding author member to annotation

Review of attachment 132658 [details] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: Annot.cc
@@ -581,4 @@
>  
>    // Sets the annot contents to new_content
>    // new_content should never be NULL
> -  virtual void setContents(GooString *new_content);

You are apparently doing whitespace changes to this line.  Please don't do that.

@@ -602,4 @@
>    AnnotSubtype getType() const { return type; }
>    PDFRectangle *getRect() const { return rect; }
>    void getRect(double *x1, double *y1, double *x2, double *y2) const;
> -  GooString *getContents() const { return contents; }

Whitespace changes again

@@ -660,4 @@
>    PDFRectangle *rect;               // Rect
>  
>    // optional data
> -  GooString *contents;              // Contents

Whitespace?

Created attachment 132684 [details] [review]
patch adding author member to annotation (ignoring EOL changes)

This is du to the eternal EOL issue. The new patch attached ignores the still existing EOL changes.

Created attachment 132686 [details] [review]
patch adding author and creation date member to annotation (ignoring EOL changes)

Additionally added the creation date member to an annotation.

We already parse "T" and "CreationDate" in AnnotMarkup::initialize where it actually belongs and also have setters, so this is something we already have and don't need at all?

Agree, no, we don't. I don't know why I overlooked that - thanks. Please ignore the patch then.

Is the modified date defined for AnnotMarkup? Just asking since I cannot see it right now ... after my bad overlooking experience in the first place. I think this would be right place for the mod date as well, no?

> Is the modified date defined for AnnotMarkup?

I don't see it defined in the specification.

Just checked in the specs: The modified date is defined for an Annot:: object and consistently implemented with Annot::, thus AnnotMarkup:: inherits it from Annot::. ... I think this ticket can be closed from my side.