Ah, this is indeed an issue on relative selector invalidation end... We use a map hashed by relative selector pointer + the invalidation it generates. Since `.outer:has(.foo)` and `& .bar` share the `has` selector at pointer level, they are considered the same, and we think these two are duplicate of each other when it's not.
Bug 1860373 Comment 14 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Ah, this is indeed an issue on relative selector invalidation end... We use a map hashed by relative selector pointer + the invalidation it generates to collapse duplicate invalidations into one. Since `.outer:has(.foo)` and `& .bar` share the `has` selector at pointer level, they are considered the same, and we think these two are duplicate of each other when it's not.