Reftests for bug 1564128 don't test what they want to test.
Categories
(Core :: Printing: Output, defect, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: emilio, Assigned: hiro)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(3 files)
https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D73140 added a bunch of reftest-paged
reftests, but reftest-paged
don't trigger the document/animation cloning stuff that those tests are supposed to test.
They should be wpt print reftests (maybe internal, in testing/web-platform/mozilla
since our behavior here is probably not specified).
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•4 years ago
|
||
Gah. Yeah we should rewrite them as mozilla-only wpt.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•4 years ago
|
||
Hmm looks like animations in print preview don't work as expected?
I will check it later.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•4 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•4 years ago
|
||
FWIW, I push the change to migrate them as wpt print test, all of them fail though.
Updated•4 years ago
|
Updated•4 years ago
|
Updated•4 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•4 years ago
|
||
The different structure causes fuzzy result.
Depends on D93020
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•4 years ago
|
||
Without PendingAnimationTracker, we can't make the refresh driver keep ticking
for the animations until we are ready to paint the printing documents. In other
words we do stop ticking [1] in DocumentTimeline::MostRecentRefreshTimeUpdated.
Depends on D94255
Updated•4 years ago
|
Comment 8•4 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5524a3282260
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/fe2f9992992b
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/88e92f9a0335
Updated•4 years ago
|
Comment 10•4 years ago
|
||
Backed out because failures were not from wptsync
Backout link: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/72ddac4860373e30a1815bf645a8782dfaf511d7
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•4 years ago
|
||
I have no idea what happened there. The changes by me has been merged in m-c. Bug 1682159 made animations-print.html test error as in comment 9, then it got backed out? (That said, it's possible that bug 1682159 un-wallpapered a pre-existing issue.)
![]() |
||
Comment 12•4 years ago
|
||
Sorry for the confusion, I shouldn't have used this bug number.
Updated•4 years ago
|
Description
•