Enabled ClipPaths option to filter letters.

[savasozer]

I hope I've implemented correctly.

[BobLd]

Is it possible to add unit tests too? If you cannot, just let me know I'll have a look

[BobLd]

No need to call currentState GetCurrentState() again here, you can reuse the currentState variable from line 246

[BobLd]

I think for the corner case where the clipping path would be null, we need to render the text (i.e. we don't skip). You can achieve that using something like

currentState.CurrentClippingPath?.Contains(transformedGlyphBounds) == false

[savasozer]

Hi,
Sorry for delay. I was out of office. I've just added a unit test. I couldn't find a more proper name :) You may change it if you need.

I'm not sure we should use .Contains because of semi-clipped letters. Should we use .Intersect? What do you think ?

[BobLd]

@savasozer no worries at all! I agree with you, using Intersect() makes more sense

[savasozer]

I couldn't find a PdfPath PdfRectangle Intersection testing method. So I made it myself using your Contains method :)

[BobLd]

@savasozer thanks a lot for that, that's very helpful.

Maybe 1 remark on your function (I'm away so I could not actually test it):

• There is a (very rare) edge case I think where the clipping path is completely inside the letter's rectangle, leading your function to return false instead of true. Same if the clipping path is smaller than the letter and partially inside and outside of the letter. In both cases all letters point would be outside but actually overlap. There might be other edge cases but I could only think about this one.

[BobLd]

Maybe this link would be useful https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38382777/how-do-i-determine-if-two-polygons-intersect-using-clipper#38382810

[jerrosenberg]

Anything I can help with to rework or tie this up? The change works for my case. Does it just need more comprehensive tests or you want coverage of more cases? I'm not sure all cases will be covered first round. Could add a ClipText option so that this functionality is opt in for now, and people can open new issues for additional cases that don't seem to be covered. Thoughts? Thanks.