Closed
Bug 1134293
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Changing background color makes text semi transparent.
Categories
(Core :: Graphics, defect)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla39
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox35 | --- | unaffected |
firefox36 | + | unaffected |
firefox37 | + | fixed |
firefox38 | + | fixed |
firefox39 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: dqeswn, Assigned: tnikkel)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(3 files)
6.46 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
4.89 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
2.94 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
review+
lmandel
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
lmandel
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I've been noticing this since autumn. It used to work properly before. I have this in a stylish script: #bookmarksPanel, #history-panel, #sidebar, #sidebar-header, #sidebar-box { /*background-color: transparent !important;*/ background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.2) !important; } I only change the background color, but for some reason the text gets semi-transparent, by the looks of it. Beta and stable seem to be unaffected so far.
Previously I reported it to the stylish dev. But it's apparently not a stylish bug: https://github.com/JasonBarnabe/stylish/issues/210
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
> I've been noticing this since autumn.
Would you be willing to bisect on nightlies to see when the problem appeared for you?
Flags: needinfo?(dqeswn)
If I must. Do nightlies even go back that far?
Flags: needinfo?(dqeswn)
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
Very much so, yes. The tinderbox on-checkin builds go back a few months; we have nightlies for years back. I'd offer to do it myself, but there's really not enough information in comment 0 for me to be able to reproduce the bug. :(
Okay, so I tried nightlies: Last good: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014/10/2014-10-01-03-02-05-mozilla-central/ First bad: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014/10/2014-10-02-03-02-02-mozilla-central/ Specifically I tried these builds: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014/10/2014-10-01-03-02-05-mozilla-central/firefox-35.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014/10/2014-10-02-03-02-02-mozilla-central/firefox-35.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
Thank you for doing that! That first build is from rev 14665b1de5ee, the second is from rev 2399d1ae89e9, so the changes between those nightlies are: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=14665b1de5ee&tochange=2399d1ae89e9 The most likely thing in there is bug 902952. Could you try setting the "gfx.direct2d.use1_1" preference to false in about:config and changing the "gfx.content.azure.backends" preference to "direct2d,cairo" to see if that's the problem? Might require a restart...
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
[Tracking Requested - why for this release]: Rendering regression Great, thanks! Bas, can you please take a look at this?
Blocks: 902952
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
tracking-firefox36:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox37:
--- → ?
Component: CSS Parsing and Computation → Graphics
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: needinfo?(bas)
Keywords: regression
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
We disabled D2D 1.1 in 36 in beta 9. I don't think the current beta is affected anymore. However, shipping D2D 1.1 in 37 is part of our objective for this release. Tracking it for 37.
status-firefox35:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox36:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox37:
--- → affected
status-firefox38:
--- → affected
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #10) > [Tracking Requested - why for this release]: I wonder if this is another layout bug with layout incorrectly determining the transparency of the text background as in bug 1102896.
Flags: needinfo?(bas)
This is not actionable until bug 1102896 is fixed? Once it is, is there anything left in this bug?
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•9 years ago
|
||
The tree body item doesn't report any component alpha bounds but I guess it draws any containing text with default settings (it doesn't seem to disable it anywhere) and that means subpixel AA. I just made it report it's whole bounds a component alpha, which is a little overkill, we could do much better but that would require looking at the tree structure pieces. And we also have to support disabled component alpha.
Assignee: nobody → tnikkel
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•9 years ago
|
||
Bug 1102896 doesn't seem to be related.
No longer depends on: 1102896
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/af1e21dc0e01
Comment 17•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/af1e21dc0e01
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
status-firefox39:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla39
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8568831 [details] [diff] [review] patch Approval Request Comment [Feature/regressing bug #]: bug 902952 [User impact if declined]: text in xul tree elements not over opaque pixels will like translucent or disappear [Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: nope [Risks and why]: should be pretty low risk [String/UUID change made/needed]: none
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 20•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Timothy Nikkel (:tn) from comment #19) > [Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: nope Given that we have no test coverage, can you please verify on m-c before uplift?
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•9 years ago
|
||
I checked on my machine on m-c and it was fixed, but that doesn't really add much new information since I also checked that it fixed the bug when I made the patch.
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
Comment 22•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Timothy Nikkel (:tn) from comment #21) > I checked on my machine on m-c and it was fixed, but that doesn't really add > much new information since I also checked that it fixed the bug when I made > the patch. Thanks Timothy. Avada - As the reporter, if you have time, can you please confirm that you can no longer reproduce this issue in the latest Nightly build?
Flags: needinfo?(dqeswn)
Comment 23•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8568831 [details] [diff] [review] patch Tested on m-c. Let's get this into Beta 2. Beta+ Aurora+
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #8568831 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Reporter | ||
Comment 24•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo) from comment #22) > (In reply to Timothy Nikkel (:tn) from comment #21) > > I checked on my machine on m-c and it was fixed, but that doesn't really add > > much new information since I also checked that it fixed the bug when I made > > the patch. > > Thanks Timothy. > > Avada - As the reporter, if you have time, can you please confirm that you > can no longer reproduce this issue in the latest Nightly build? It looks okay now with d2d 1.1 on.
Flags: needinfo?(dqeswn)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•