Open
Bug 393765
Opened 17 years ago
Updated 3 years ago
Editor makes bogus assumptions about frame offsets
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Editor, defect, P5)
Core
DOM: Editor
Tracking
()
NEW
People
(Reporter: bzbarsky, Unassigned)
Details
nsEditor::EndPlaceHolderTransaction has this comment: // By making the assumption that no reflow happens during the calls // to EndUpdateViewBatch and ScrollSelectionIntoView, we are able to // allow the selection to cache a frame offset which is used by the // caret drawing code. Unfortunately, EndUpdateViewBatch can most certainly trigger reflow. So this comment is just bogus. Which makes me very suspicious of the code... Do we actually need this cache anymore? We only use it for ScrollSelectionIntoView, right?
Flags: blocking1.9?
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
This stuff was never very perf-sensitive, as far as I know... I'd say blow away the caching code. GetPointFromOffset isn't so expensive that it's worth the trouble of caching the result.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
The caching was added for bug 35296. We should make sure to test that if we remove (which I whole heartedly support).
What symptoms does this have?
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
Presumably incorrect caret placement in some cases. At least I hope that's the worst that will happen. If this cached frame stuff doesn't deal with frame destruction under EndUpdateViewBatch (which can easily happen), then we get the usual "accessing deleted frame" stuff.
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9-
Whiteboard: [wanted-1.9]
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: wanted1.9+
Whiteboard: [wanted-1.9]
Flags: wanted1.9-
Flags: wanted1.9+
Flags: wanted-next+
Comment 5•3 years ago
|
||
Bulk-downgrade of unassigned, >=5 years untouched DOM/Storage bugs' priority and severity.
If you have reason to believe this is wrong, please write a comment and ni :jstutte.
Severity: normal → S4
Priority: -- → P5
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•