(I don't immediately see how this could fail, since I think it implies that ClampZoom isn't successfully clamping us to a positive range, which means we've got a nsViewportInfo with a min or max value that is negative or zero... And I don't think that's supposed to be possible. based on my `nsViewportInfo::ConstrainViewportValues()` assertion in Bug 1566991. But maybe there's a codepath I'm not considering where one of the constraints gets modified. Anyway, we can hopefully get more information once ClampZoom is stricter with assertions.
Bug 1568673 Comment 2 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
I don't immediately see how the assertion in bug 1568405 could fail, since I think a failure would imply that one of our `ClampZoom` calls isn't successfully clamping us to a positive range, which means we've got a nsViewportInfo with a min or max value that is negative or zero... And I don't think that's supposed to be possible. based on my `nsViewportInfo::ConstrainViewportValues()` assertion in Bug 1566991. But maybe there's a codepath I'm not considering where one of the constraints gets modified. Anyway, we can hopefully get more information once ClampZoom is stricter with assertions.
I don't immediately see how the assertion in bug 1568405 could fail, since I think a failure would imply that one of our `ClampZoom` calls isn't successfully clamping us to a positive range, which means we've got a nsViewportInfo with a min or max value that is negative or zero... And I don't think that's supposed to be possible based on my `nsViewportInfo::ConstrainViewportValues()` assertion in Bug 1566991. But maybe there's a codepath I'm not considering where one of the constraints gets modified. Anyway, we can hopefully get more information once ClampZoom is stricter with assertions.