Bugzilla

fwiw from a Claude's investigation Bug 2011984 — "UI polish pass for Settings Redesign" (commit: 55a8f442befa) is the possible regressor

>   In toolkit/content/widgets/moz-promo/moz-promo.mjs, that commit:
> 
>   1. Introduced the imageDisplay property (didn't exist before) with constructor default this.imageDisplay = "padded";
>   2. Introduced imageWidth with default this.imageWidth = "small";
>   3. Changed how images render — replaced the CSS-background mechanism (which paints --promo-image-url across the image
>   container, effectively "cover") with an <img src=…> element whose layout is driven by the new imageDisplay/imageWidth
>   attributes.
> 
>   Before this commit, there was no "cover vs padded" choice — moz-promo painted the image as a CSS background and that's what
>   every consumer got. After this commit, any consumer that doesn't explicitly set .imageDisplay = "cover" and .imageWidth = 
>   "large" renders padded-small instead of the old cover-large look.

fwiw from a Claude investigation Bug 2011984 — "UI polish pass for Settings Redesign" (commit: 55a8f442befa) is the possible regressor

>   In toolkit/content/widgets/moz-promo/moz-promo.mjs, that commit:
> 
>   1. Introduced the imageDisplay property (didn't exist before) with constructor default this.imageDisplay = "padded";
>   2. Introduced imageWidth with default this.imageWidth = "small";
>   3. Changed how images render — replaced the CSS-background mechanism (which paints --promo-image-url across the image
>   container, effectively "cover") with an <img src=…> element whose layout is driven by the new imageDisplay/imageWidth
>   attributes.
> 
>   Before this commit, there was no "cover vs padded" choice — moz-promo painted the image as a CSS background and that's what
>   every consumer got. After this commit, any consumer that doesn't explicitly set .imageDisplay = "cover" and .imageWidth = 
>   "large" renders padded-small instead of the old cover-large look.