1470436 - thead overlaps tbody when using page-break-(after/before) property

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Kyle McNally]

Attachment: index.html

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.87 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce:

1. Open attached HTML
2. Print Preview


Actual results:

I have page-break-after: always on top level div's so I can create multiple pages. Pages that 'overflow' onto multiple pages work correctly, the thead is duplicated on the next page. Pages that do not overflow onto multiple pages have a problem where the thead overlaps the tbody. It seems to be related to the page-break-after property.

Worked in FF 52 ESR
Does not work in FF60 and 62

The regression seems to appear in FF56, as it renders properly in FF55.


Expected results:

The thead does not overlap the tbody on any page.
Chrome 67 and Edge on Windows 1803 renders properly.

Comment 1

[Kyle McNally]

This might be a duplicate of 1404868

Comment 2

[Kyle McNally]

It looks like adding some margin or padding to the element that uses page-break-after will fix the regression. I would still like this regression fixed without the use of this workaround.

Comment 3

[Marco Castelluccio [:marco]]

Could you try to use mozregression to find a more precise regression range?

Comment 4

[roxleitan]

Last good revision: e6e712904806da25a9c8f48ea4533abe7c6ea8f4
First bad revision: d6bf703c5deaf1e328babd03d5e68ff2a4ffe10e
Pushlog:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=e6e712904806da25a9c8f48ea4533abe7c6ea8f4&tochange=d6bf703c5deaf1e328babd03d5e68ff2a4ffe10e

Comment 5

[Kyle McNally]

That revision window seems to the same as I got when using mozregression. However, I would disagree with it just affecting Print Preview, as it does appear on the physical printed page as well.

Comment 6

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

This bug was fixed in this range, which means it was fixed by bug 1427141.

Comment 7

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Do the tests landed in bug 1427141 cover this case or should we land the test from this bug still?

Comment 8

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

The tests for bug 1427141 is probably enough to cover this case. This bug doesn't really have a reduced testcase anyway.