Closed Bug 1384691 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

stylo: There's another caller of HasAuthorSpecifiedRules that doesn't go through the pres context (text-shadow in selection may behave differently).


(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect, P3)




Tracking Status
firefox-esr52 --- wontfix
firefox55 --- wontfix
firefox56 --- wontfix
firefox57 --- wontfix
firefox58 --- fixed


(Reporter: emilio, Assigned: xidorn)




(1 file)

This is in [1].

It's somewhat annoying because it gives us a pseudo-element style... It's presumably not terrible to implement.

That being said, stylo doesn't fail any text-shadow-selected-x tests right now...

It's only used to set mHasSelectionShadow. But there are no text-shadow UA rules, so that will always return true iff mTextShadow is non-null, I think, except for user sheets...

Anyway, need to look into it more in detail.

Somewhat related to bug 1363088 (which is a bug in both Gecko and Stylo).
Depends on: 1363088
Priority: -- → P3
I'm looking into whether we can actually just remove that call as well as mHasSelectionShadow.
Assignee: nobody → xidorn+moz
This is probably OK - at least, so far I don't see why it shouldn't be, though I'd like to look at it a bit more and try to understand what the code was attempting to do. But in looking at text selection examples, I'm seeing an alarming difference between non-stylo and stylo behavior, at least on macOS. (I mention this because selection highlighting differs significantly between platforms, so it's possible this is a Mac-only regression.)

Filed bug 1401317 to look into that.
Comment on attachment 8907476 [details]
Bug 1384691 - Unconditionally set mHasSelectionShadow when -moz-selection pseudo element is used.

Yeah, I think it should be fine to do this. Sorry for the delay here.
Attachment #8907476 - Flags: review?(jfkthame) → review+
Pushed by
Unconditionally set mHasSelectionShadow when -moz-selection pseudo element is used. r=jfkthame
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla58
Blocks: 1363088
No longer depends on: 1363088
Does this need uplift to Beta or can it ride the 58 train?
Flags: needinfo?(xidorn+moz)
I don't think it's important to uplift it to Beta. Let's just have it ride the 58 train.
Flags: needinfo?(xidorn+moz)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.