Closed Bug 1059213 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

[woodduck] [clock] stopwatch digits jerky

Categories

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::Clock, defect)

Product:
Firefox OS Graveyard
Component:
Gaia::Clock
Platform:
ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(blocking-b2g:2.0M+, b2g-v2.0M verified)

Status:
VERIFIED FIXED
Project Flags:
blocking-b2g 2.0M+
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
b2g-v2.0M --- verified

People

(Reporter: hlu, Assigned: mwu)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [2.0-woodduck-test-run-1])

Attachments

(6 files)

IMG_3830.MOV
7.56 MB, video/quicktime
Details
Merge master branch to v2.0m
44 bytes, text/x-github-pull-request
Details | Review
with-gecko-patch.png
13.56 KB, image/png
Details
without-gecko-patch.png
14.62 KB, image/png
Details
Use -moz-font-feature-settings on v2.0m
910 bytes, patch
mcav
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Verify_Woodduck_Clock.MP4
1.54 MB, video/mp4
Details
Attached video IMG_3830.MOV — 
Description:
    stopwatch digits jerky

Repro Steps:
    1. Launch Clock
    2. Switch to Stopwatch tab
    3. Click Start

Actual:
    stopwatch digits jerky

Expected:
    Stopewatch digits without jerky

Environment:
    Gaia      d72f8ad53448aed577c01ff6e11d958463f261e7
    Gecko     0c4e7a915f4bd9a27f3935384a8a676b46d67432
    BuildID   20140827115744
    Version   32.0
    ro.build.version.incremental=1409111118
    ro.build.date=Wed Aug 27 11:45:43 CST 2014
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
Hi Evelyn,

Could you please check it first?
Thanks

Sincerely,
Wayne
It's a font problem. The number '1' is obviously thinner than other digits. Do we have correct system font files in /system/fonts? I assume we should at least have the following files, and the font we used here is Sans-serif which is in files named Fira*.

 DroidSerif-Bold.ttf
 DroidSerif-BoldItalic.ttf
 DroidSerif-Italic.ttf
 DroidSerif-Regular.ttf
 FiraMonoOT-Bold.otf
 FiraMonoOT-Regular.otf
 FiraSansOT-Bold.otf
 FiraSansOT-BoldItalic.otf
 FiraSansOT-Light.otf
 FiraSansOT-LightItalic.otf
 FiraSansOT-Medium.otf
 FiraSansOT-MediumItalic.otf
 FiraSansOT-Regular.otf
 FiraSansOT-RegularItalic.otf
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
I searched all relative font in /system/fonts, the fonts you list are all in system.

DroidSerif-Bold.ttf
DroidSerif-BoldItalic.ttf
DroidSerif-Italic.ttf
DroidSerif-Regular.ttf
FiraMonoOT-Bold.otf
FiraMonoOT-Regular.otf
FiraSansOT-Bold.otf
FiraSansOT-BoldItalic.otf
FiraSansOT-Light.otf
FiraSansOT-LightItalic.otf
FiraSansOT-Medium.otf
FiraSansOT-MediumItalic.otf
FiraSansOT-Regular.otf
FiraSansOT-RegularItalic.otf
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
Thanks for checking, then my another guess is: maybe there is another font file overwrites the correct one (i.e., it's in the prior order while registering into gecko).
Let's try this: remove all font files except those listed above and reboot, see what will happen...
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
I remove all fonts except above list. But it's still have same problem. I check out folder, and the fonts is the same as flame's. Is there other thing I can check?
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
Wayne, thanks for checking again, then I think we need chens's help to get a device and digs into it.

@Chens, could you help here? Thanks.
Flags: needinfo?(ehung) → needinfo?(shchen)
Hi all, 

I found that external/moztt v2.0 branch has this problem, but external/moztt master branch doesn't.
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
This is a common issue, it can also be reproduced on flame v2.0. http://goo.gl/fnrTcy
Flags: needinfo?(shchen)
Flags: needinfo?(mwu)
Flags: needinfo?(ehung)
Hi Michael,

I found there is a new set of font in master branch, does it need to uplift to 2.0?

commit 96cdde4b5b5d8d3785b36c3c68cd746aff3005cc
Merge: c510bab 1b18f4d
Author: Michael Wu <mwu@mozilla.com>
Date:   Tue Jul 1 12:16:22 2014 +0800

    Merge pull request #50 from jfkthame/fira-3.109-hacked

    Fira 3.109 hacked to fix negative advances, line height metrics


Sincerely,
Wayne
That was introduced as part of bug 987872 , but that was not uplifted to 2.0. There is no approval at the moment to uplift to 2.0. There's two components to that patch - a set of moztt commits and a commit to gecko, so you'll need both if you want to try the new fonts.
Flags: needinfo?(mwu)
(In reply to Michael Wu [:mwu] from comment #10)
> That was introduced as part of bug 987872 , but that was not uplifted to
> 2.0. There is no approval at the moment to uplift to 2.0. There's two
> components to that patch - a set of moztt commits and a commit to gecko, so
> you'll need both if you want to try the new fonts.

I verified on gecko 2.0 with fonts from moztt master branch, the problem is fixed.
This issue is reproduced on Flame. So I think we should request the approval for v2.0.
Hmm, I would prefer not uplifting the fonts to v2.0.. how about v2.0m instead?

The reason is that this may confuse people who are testing with shallow flashing on 2.0 without the new fonts installed. Either way, feel free to request blocking on bug 987872 for whatever branch you'd like.
Yes, I think using v2.0m is also reasonable. I'll finish v2.0m branch and update the manifest accordingly.
blocking-b2g: --- → 2.0M?
Michael, I merged master branch to v2.0m, could you have a look to this PR? Thanks!
Attachment #8489831 - Flags: review?(mwu)
Hi Kai,

After applying 2.0m into our P4 and using external/moztt to replace android's fonts, I see the same bug on soul35.

Please quickly push the patch onto 2.0m, thanks a lot
Piazza, PR is sent on comment 14, once it get r+ I'll merge it.
Two issues:

1. *All* font changes are being merged. We only need the font changes that update Fira.
2. I don't see an uplift to update the font name in Gecko, which is required to use the new font.

I recommend doing the necessary work in bug 987872 as that's the actual bug you'll want to uplift.
I've cherry picked the necessary changes to update Fira only on bug 987872. That bug just needs v2.0m+ and we can land the update.
Kai-Zhen, let me know if the PR on bug 987872 and the gecko patch works for you. I've cherry picked the necessary commits but I haven't had a chance to test yet.
Flags: needinfo?(kli)
Attachment #8489831 - Flags: review?(mwu)
This bug is to be solved in bug 987872
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
blocking-b2g: 2.0M? → ---
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Michael, sorry for late reply you.

1. Only patch moztt with pull/53 or pull/54, stopwatch digits jerky issue will be fixed.

2. When PR/53 on bug 987872 and the gecko patch are applied, stopwatch digits jerky issue is still reproduced.
Flags: needinfo?(kli)
This likely means that the fonts aren't installed properly - make sure you flash everything and check the /system/fonts directory. You might also want to check the actual font being used with the developer tools.
Flags: needinfo?(kli)
Attached image with-gecko-patch.png — 
I checked the fonts are installed properly.
This is the font disaplayed in case 2 of comment 21.
Attached image without-gecko-patch.png — 
This is the font disaplayed in case 1 of comment 21.
Flags: needinfo?(kli)
Ok. So it turns out the real problem is the clock app tries to use a CSS feature that isn't supported on Gecko 32 - font-variant-numeric. I think the clock app was tested incorrectly with the new fonts which is why it looked like updating the fonts fixed things. There's an alternate css property that will do the job though. Patch coming up.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
v2.0 / Gecko 32 doesn't support font-feature-variant, so here's an alternative that it does support.
Assignee: nobody → mwu
Attachment #8494147 - Flags: review?(m)
Michael, with your patch this issue can be fixed without uplift bug 987872.
(In reply to Kai-Zhen Li [:seinlin] from comment #27)
> Michael, with your patch this issue can be fixed without uplift bug 987872.

We'll need to either back out the uplift of bug 987872 or also uplift bug 1032659.
(In reply to Michael Wu [:mwu] from comment #28)
> 
> We'll need to either back out the uplift of bug 987872 or also uplift bug
> 1032659.

Michael, Thanks! To keep the minimum difference between 2.0 and 2.0m, I did back out the uplift of bug 987872.
Attachment #8494147 - Flags: review?(m) → review+
blocking-b2g: --- → 2.0M+
PR created: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/pull/24435

and merged: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/commit/0b71822a608ebd1b2876fe5d18aae2e7172eb31e
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago → 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Michael, Thanks!
status-b2g-v2.0M: --- → fixed
[Blocking Requested - why for this release]: This can fix bug 1008009
Group: woodduck-confidential
blocking-b2g: 2.0M+ → 1.4?
Wayne, This can solve bug 1008009, can you help to block 1.4? Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(wchang)
Thanks Kai-Zhen, but we're trimming down the stuff that goes into 1.4 now and I don't think this is necessarily a blocker for 1.4

I am flipping the flag back and ni'ing Vance here, in case 1.4 does need it we can have the OEM pick it.
blocking-b2g: 1.4? → 2.0M+
Flags: needinfo?(wchang) → needinfo?(vchen)
OK. The request is coming from bug 1008009.
See Also: → Fira
Verify passed, this issue can't be repro on Woodduck 2.0.
Attached: Verify_Woodduck_Clock.mp4
Reproducing rate: 0/5

Woodduck 2.0 Build:
Gaia-Rev        60146ec47cd38a8be8ed22e0116902eceb9ac067
Gecko-Rev       cdfbe9866cf0b71b33454926638ce0cd8bb1fb00
Build-ID        20141117050313
Version         32.0
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
status-b2g-v2.0M: fixed → verified

          You need to log in
          before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
        






  

    
  







  

    

      
Attachment

      

      
      
      
      
    

    

      

        

          

            
General

            

              Creator: 



            

            
Created: 

            
Updated: 

            
Size: