168170 - dynamically changing document.getElementById("xxx").style.display fails on large page

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: CSS Object Model, defect)

Description

[Stefan A. Möller]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2a) Gecko/20020910
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2a) Gecko/20020910

Altering the visibility of a <div> using
document.getElementById("xxx").style.display
does not work if the size of the <div> is larger than the browser window.

This is a regression, it used to work with Mozila 1.1


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
compare the next two attachments

Comment 1

[Stefan A. Möller]

Attachment: it works with a small <div>

Comment 2

[Stefan A. Möller]

Attachment: ...but it doesn't work with a large <div>

Comment 3

[Andrew Schultz]

confirmed with linux trunk build 20020912
regression between trunk builds 2002082008 and 2002082105

Comment 4

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

roc, any ideas?  Looks like we never paint the new div for some reason.... (and
the content area goes dead).

Comment 5

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

This is a scrolling problem and I've seen it in a few other places. When the
scrolled area is resized it doesn't automatically get scrolled back into view.
What you're seeing is "below the bottom of the document".

It would be great if someone could narrow down the regression by downloading
trunk builds to find the smallest window in which the bug appeared. That would
probably make this pretty trivial to fix. Andrew, Stefan, can you do that?

Comment 6

[Stefan A. Möller]

> It would be great if someone could narrow down the regression by downloading
> trunk builds to find the smallest window in which the bug appeared.
It seems Andrew has done that already!? See comment #3

Comment 7

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

oops! so he has

Comment 8

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

I'll bet a donut that it was the checkin for bug 163800.

Comment 9

[Andrew Schultz]

ahh... then the same thing is happening in bug 163970, right?

Comment 10

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

Yep. Same problem.

Comment 11

[Pete Zha]

Should be fixed by backout checkin for bug 163800