Closed
Bug 240903
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Clicking image input highlights the image in purple/blue
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: General, defect, P2)
SeaMonkey
General
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.7final
People
(Reporter: quatrixj, Assigned: roc)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: fixed1.7, regression, Whiteboard: [Comment 23: short-term done; long-term wanted...] fixed-aviary1.0)
Attachments
(3 files, 4 obsolete files)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8a) Gecko/20040418 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8a) Gecko/20040418 On https://www.schwabplan.com/login/login.asp?wci=participantLogin and other pages with inputs of type "image", clicking the image button highlights the image in purple. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open https://www.schwabplan.com/login/login.asp?wci=participantLogin 2. Click the "LOGIN" button (login.gif). Actual Results: The image is highlighted before the next page loads. Expected Results: I previously saw a light grey outline around a clicked image, without the image itself changing color. The problem started in Mozilla 1.7b. When I uninstalled it and reinstalled 1.6, the problem went away. When I again installed 1.7b, the problem reappeared. I'm currently on nightly build 2004041809, and the issue has not yet been fixed. Anton van Bohemen reported a similar problem in Bug 224798, Comment #3. I'm running Windows 98 SE with an ATI Radeon 8500.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Open http://maps.yahoo.com/dd, enter any two addresses, and click somewhere on the resulting map.
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Keywords: regression
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
The problem seems to be that clicking the image selects it, and selected images get a purple overlay like that.... If someone can track down the exact date when this regressed, that would be most helpful.
Keywords: qawanted
The earliest report of this bug so far is in Build 2004031616 (from James Arnold Bug 224798, Comment #4). The bug doesn't appear in 1.6 final, the roadmap says 1.6 was realeased on 20040115. That's about a 2 month period. Anyone running any builds in between these dates can help out by narrowing the window.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
OS: Windows 98 → All
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
Bug? I thought that this was a new feature added to make it easier to see when an INPUT image had been clicked. I quite like it the way that it is now :)
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
> 1.6 was realeased on 20040115
But it branched on 2003-12-12. So three-month period.
re: comment #6 This is a problem for some cases, e.g. if the submit target is another frame (like in bug 224798) then the selected image remains purple even when the form has been submitted. Is there an RFE for this somewhere? re: comment #7 Borris indeed you are right. If this is indeed a new feature then it should be easy to trace right?
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
3 months means somwhere on the order of 1000 checkins or more that could be responsible. If the regression range is gotten down to a matter of days, tracing should be possible.
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 241129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
Actually, testing shows that this started between 2004-02-27-09 and 2004-02-28-08. Most likely due to the changes from bug 53966....
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
Interesting. Unfortunately I know almost nothing about the selection code.
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
Maybe it's a matter of calling changing the click event status to handled when we submit?
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
That sounds like a good idea.
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
Doesn't seem to help... Also, it looks like when I start dragging out of an <input type="image"> the nsTransferableFactory::Produce method in nsContentAreaDragAndDrop is not getting called. For that matter, neither is nsContentAreaDragDrop::DragGesture. I'm not sure whether that's related to this bug, but it may be.
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
Note that in a build in which this "works" if I click on an image input and then drag off somewhere, it often becomes selected when I drag dar enough.. (eg on the page in comment 0, drag straight down).
Comment 17•20 years ago
|
||
I can add another dimension to this one. When you have two <input> images together, the first seems to have the 'purple' (although it looks more blue to me) fault and the second one looks fine. Demonstated well here: http://tom.playford.net/imagebug/ Tested on firefox 8 and Mozilla 1.6, both linux. Tom
Comment 18•20 years ago
|
||
On that page, I see both images turn blue when clicked.
Reporter | ||
Comment 19•20 years ago
|
||
About purple vs. blue -- in Windows the highlight color depends on your Control Panel > Display > Appearance settings.
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Summary: Clicking image input highlights the image in purple → Clicking image input highlights the image in purple/blue
Comment 20•20 years ago
|
||
This is a quite visible regression, and it is new since 1.6 so I am asking for blockage of 1.7. This is more important than ever since so many products will be based on 1.7.
Flags: blocking1.7?
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
any thoughts on what it might take to fix this? roc, any recommendations on what we should do for 1.7?
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•20 years ago
|
||
I need to investigate it, I guess.
Assignee: general → roc
Priority: -- → P2
Comment 23•20 years ago
|
||
So I was poking at the code in nsFrame::HandlePress and it special-cases draggable objects (like <img>, <a>, etc) for selection extension purposes. It forgets <input type="image">. (It also screws up <area>, since it tries to QI to nsIDOMHTML_Anchor_Element for that... but anyway). Short-term, we could just hack <input> in there... Medium-term, we could use the nsIImageLoadingContent attribute biesi's adding in bug 196380. Long-term, I would think that all this logic should live in the dragdrop service and this code should just ask said service, "Is this node draggable?" If the "long-term" fix is not too hard, we should just do it... That's all for the first place HTMLImageElement is used in that code. The second place is editor-specific and should probably just use nsIImageLoadingContent. And no matter what, we should fix the Area thing.
Depends on: 196380
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
For 1.7, we should definitely just hack it in there, and also put that patch on the trunk for consistency.
Comment 25•20 years ago
|
||
Yeah, makes sense. We should probably just spin off a bug for moving this logic out of here (into nsContentUtils or something).
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.7? → blocking1.7+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: working on patch
Comment 26•20 years ago
|
||
is a patch close? trying to wrap 1.7 in the next few days...
Comment 27•20 years ago
|
||
I won't be able to create and test a patch here anytime soon (we're talking June 7 soon)... Given the information in comment 23, anyone who knows C++ and has a bit of time should be able to patch this and do some testing, though.
Comment 28•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 23 'short-term' suggestion.
Comment 29•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 149677 [details] [diff] [review] (Av1-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only) I have no compiler: Could you compile/test/review this patch ? Thanks.
Attachment #149677 -
Attachment description: (Av1-r) <nsFrame.cpp> → (Av1-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term'
Attachment #149677 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149677 -
Attachment description: (Av1-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' → (Av1-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only)
Comment 30•20 years ago
|
||
The whole point is that the compile/test part is the time-consuming part....
Comment 31•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #30) > The whole point is that the compile/test part is the time-consuming part.... I do know, but what else can I do ? I'd like to know someone who could do this part(s) on my patches, but I don't :-(
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•20 years ago
|
||
Serge, is there a reason why you can't get a compiler?
Comment 33•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #32) > Serge, is there a reason why you can't get a compiler? Unfortunately, there is: To make the story short: My computer is not suited for a compilation environment; and I don't plan to upgrade in the near future :-( This is why I'm looking for compile/test partner(s) ... And I may just have found one today :-)
Comment 34•20 years ago
|
||
testing patch on windows.
Comment 35•20 years ago
|
||
I need to add: #include "nsUnicharUtils.h" #include "nsIDOMHTMLInputElement.h" to get this to compile. I'll post a package of my build to run performance tests with in case there are extremely negative side effects.
Comment 36•20 years ago
|
||
There really shouldn't be any perf impact from that patch, as far as I can tell.
Comment 37•20 years ago
|
||
Test zip file will appear at http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/nightly/experimental/mozilla-win32-240903.zip in approximately fifteen minutes (ftp mirrors will need to sync) I verified that the behaviour is fixed, i will attach the patch with the added includes for review.
Comment 38•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #149677 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149677 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149770 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Comment 39•20 years ago
|
||
Av1b, with duplicated |#include "nsCOMPtr.h"| removal.
Attachment #149770 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 40•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 149771 [details] [diff] [review] (Av1c-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only) [Check in: See Av1c-ci] It seems that leaf and I have been posting updated patch at the same time... Leaf, maybe you could try another compilation for this one ? (if needed)
Attachment #149771 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149770 -
Attachment description: nsFrame.cpp diff (same as previous, but with necessary includes) → (Av1b) nsFrame.cpp diff (same as previous, but with necessary includes)
Attachment #149770 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149770 -
Attachment description: (Av1b) nsFrame.cpp diff (same as previous, but with necessary includes) → (Av1b-r) nsFrame.cpp diff (same as previous, but with necessary includes)
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 149771 [details] [diff] [review] (Av1c-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only) [Check in: See Av1c-ci] Looks good!
Attachment #149771 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #149771 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #149771 -
Flags: review+
Comment 42•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 149771 [details] [diff] [review] (Av1c-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only) [Check in: See Av1c-ci] 'approval1.7=?': blocking1.7+; Simple U.I. code fix, low risk.
Attachment #149771 -
Flags: approval1.7?
Comment 43•20 years ago
|
||
224798 may also be related
Comment 44•20 years ago
|
||
Av1c-r, with white space diff included. (Modified lines move one column to the left, as this part of the file is off by +1.)
Comment 45•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 149771 [details] [diff] [review] (Av1c-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only) [Check in: See Av1c-ci] a=chofmann for 1.7
Attachment #149771 -
Flags: approval1.7? → approval1.7+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: working on patch → [Comment 23: short-term done; long-term wanted...]
Assignee | ||
Comment 46•20 years ago
|
||
Checked in on trunk and branch.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 47•20 years ago
|
||
I guess we should file a separate bug on the "long-term" fix in comment 23?
Assignee | ||
Comment 48•20 years ago
|
||
Yes.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149776 -
Attachment description: (Av1c-ci) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for check-in only) → (Av1c-ci) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for check-in only)
[Checked in: Comment 46]
Attachment #149776 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149771 -
Attachment description: (Av1c-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only) → (Av1c-r) <nsFrame.cpp> 'short-term' (for review only)
[Check in: See Av1c-ci]
Attachment #149771 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•20 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.7final
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Comment 23: short-term done; long-term wanted...] → [Comment 23: short-term done; long-term wanted...] needed-aviary1.0
Reporter | ||
Comment 49•20 years ago
|
||
Installed nightly build 20040602 and it looks good, thanks.
Comment 50•20 years ago
|
||
I am still seeing this behavior on Aviary/Firefox. Should I open a Fx bug for that, wait patiently for this fix to make its way there, or what? Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040604 Firefox/0.8.0+
Comment 51•20 years ago
|
||
the answer is B - wait patiently for this fix to make its way there. That's what the "needed-aviary1.0" is for in the status whiteboard. At some point the firefox folks will copy/port the 1.7 fixes into aviary.
Whiteboard: [Comment 23: short-term done; long-term wanted...] needed-aviary1.0 → [Comment 23: short-term done; long-term wanted...] fixed-aviary1.0
Comment 52•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 243242 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 53•20 years ago
|
||
Bug 251775 filed on comment 23.
Reporter | ||
Comment 54•20 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #166613 -
Attachment description: Screen shot from http://www.ati.com → http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html
Reporter | ||
Comment 55•20 years ago
|
||
I'm seeing a related issue on a few web sites. Go to http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html and click the "Go" button in the bottom-right. The resulting highlight around the button is much more obvious than the normal one. I can reproduce in Firefox 1.0 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0) but it looks okay in Mozilla 1.8a4 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8a4) Gecko/20040927). Is this a regression of 240903, something new, or was a fix not ported to Firefox? Screen shot is attached.
Comment 56•20 years ago
|
||
> Is this a regression of 240903, something new, or was a fix not ported to
> Firefox?
Most likely the last. If it works on trunk, it'll work in Firefox 1.1.
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #166613 -
Attachment description: http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html → Screen shot from http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html
Comment 57•20 years ago
|
||
according to bonsai (and the status whiteboard here), this was checked in to the branch http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=AviaryBranchTinderbox&branch=AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH&branchtype=match&date=explicit&mindate=2004-06-17+19%3A42&maxdate=2004-06-17+19%3A46&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot and the ATI site WFM in Firefox 1.0
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•