fix: reject encrypted PDF on upload #21
Closed
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
|
This is looking good, can you please update invalid PDF message to include the possibility that it is encrypted |
ublefo
force-pushed
the
feat/reject-encrypted-pdf
branch
from
9dc8959 to
9f7e52d
Compare
password for the encrypted pdf test file is 'password'
ublefo
force-pushed
the
feat/reject-encrypted-pdf
branch
from
9f7e52d to
a042df5
Compare
|
Closed in favor of doubtfire-lms#436 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Changes
Supersedes #5, do not merge until CI fixes have been merged.
password.accept_fileand PDF validation methods inFileHelperin order to return validation errors to the frontend.Tests
Screenshots
Instructions for reviewers: check out the branch, try submitting the encrypted and corrupted sample PDF files I provided, they should be rejected immediately. Running unit tests locally is not strictly necessary as the GitHub Actions workflow has already been fixed, just verify the results below.