(Spinning this off of bug 1638937 for a regression that we identified in the testcase there, which was introduced after that bug was filed) STR: 1. Load attached testcase. EXPECTED RESULTS: The upper and lower section should look the same. (Both of the teal boxes should use the fallback 300px by 150px intrinsic size defined in https://www.w3.org/TR/css-sizing-3/#intrinsic-sizes ) ACTUAL RESULTS: In the first one (with `display:flex`), the teal SVG element is wide and in fact overflows its container. It looks like we're sizing it to 100% of the container's border-box width, or something like that. This seems to be a regression. As TYLin noted: mozregression finds [this range](https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=17f61493037d1a0acacadf7a4350238d0320190f&tochange=5ca936ea4848d5ddb5aa6b081b35e3573977ba82), and bug 1686603 is likely the suspect behind it. Note, this is similar to bug 1651754, but this specific testcase regressed more-recently than when that bug is filed, so I'm considering it distinct at this point. (It's possible that the regression was just exposing a new way to trigger the same issue, though.)
Bug 1786610 Comment 0 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(Spinning this off of bug 1638937 for a regression that we identified in the testcase there, which was introduced after that bug was filed) STR: 1. Load attached testcase. EXPECTED RESULTS: The upper and lower section should look the same. (Both of the teal boxes should use the fallback 300px by 150px intrinsic size defined in https://www.w3.org/TR/css-sizing-3/#intrinsic-sizes ) ACTUAL RESULTS: In the first one (with `display:flex`), the teal SVG element is wide and in fact overflows its container. It looks like we're sizing it to 100% of the container's border-box width, or something like that. This seems to be a regression. As TYLin noted in bug 1638937 comment 5: mozregression finds [this range](https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=17f61493037d1a0acacadf7a4350238d0320190f&tochange=5ca936ea4848d5ddb5aa6b081b35e3573977ba82), and bug 1686603 is likely the suspect behind it. Note, this is similar to bug 1651754, but this specific testcase regressed more-recently than when that bug is filed, so I'm considering it distinct at this point. (It's possible that the regression was just exposing a new way to trigger the same issue, though.)