1590203 - Handle more efficiently changes from overflow: visible to -moz-hidden-unscrollable, and from overflow: scroll to hidden.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, task)

Description

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

In those cases we don't need to reframe, as whether we need an scroll frame doesn't change things.

Comment 1

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

Yeah, I was surprised that going from visible to -moz-hidden-unscrollable reframes. But I guess clip-path is nicer than -moz-hidden-unscrollable anyway in that it's standards-approved. Is there some downside?

Comment 2

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

(In reply to Dão Gottwald [::dao] from comment #1)

Is there some downside?

Nevermind, I saw Matt's comment.

Comment 3

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

Attachment: Bug 1590203 - Handle overflow changes more gracefully when possible.

Comment 4

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/0f84a44ca28f
Handle overflow changes more gracefully when possible. r=mattwoodrow

Comment 5

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

Is this eligible for uplifting? Bug 1584101 affects 71.

Comment 6

[Natalia Csoregi [:nataliaCs]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0f84a44ca28f

Comment 7

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

Probably not. Upon closer inspection, this patch is not 100% correct, see bug 1590357. We need to do more than repainting.

If it's 100% required we could probably uplift this and the other bug, though I'd probably wait a few days.

Comment 8

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #7)

If it's 100% required we could probably uplift this and the other bug, though I'd probably wait a few days.

Alternatively we could ship the regression, or go back to using clip-path: inset(100%) in 71.

Comment 9

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

I think we should be able to uplift this and bug 1590357 altogether. We're at the beginning of the beta cycle, so I think we're good.

Comment 10

[:Gijs (he/him)]

(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #9)

I think we should be able to uplift this and bug 1590357 altogether. We're at the beginning of the beta cycle, so I think we're good.

I requested uplift for 1590357 - can you request uplift here? Thanks.

Comment 11

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

So this bug needs both that one and bug 1590550 to be fully correct... But the later caused bug 1595000 which I'm still investigating.

So at this point I tend to think this should ride the trains unless this is a release blocker of any sort. wdyt?

Comment 12

[:Gijs (he/him)]

(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #11)

So this bug needs both that one and bug 1590550 to be fully correct... But the later caused bug 1595000 which I'm still investigating.

So at this point I tend to think this should ride the trains unless this is a release blocker of any sort. wdyt?

I dunno. Depends how much we care about the memory use regression in bug 1584101, which is what I meant to refer to in comment #10. Do we have any easier/smaller fixes that would still be safe for 71 or are we going to have to live with the increased memory usage for the 71 cycle?

Comment 13

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

I can't think of easier fixes, no...