1835567 - Ugly font in devtools due to font-visibility pref

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect, P2)

Description

[Oriol Brufau [:Oriol]]

1. Open Nightly (a restart is needed if you opened devtools in a normal window)

2. Open a private window

3. Open the Inspector devtool (Ctrl+Shift+C)
   Expected: The HTML tree should use the "Noto Sans Mono" font, which about:preferences considers the default monospace font for my system.
   Actual due to bug 1826408 it uses "Noto Sans Mono CJK SC", which I guess it's designed for CJK and looks ugly with latin characters.

4. Close the private window

5. In a non-private window, open the Inspector devtool (Ctrl+Shift+C)
   Expected: the "Noto Sans Mono" font, even more so now since now it's not a private window.
   Actual: "Noto Sans Mono CJK SC" again.

So actually I'm complaining about various things here:

• I get that layout.css.font-visibility.private is trying to hide some fonts, but I don't see why "Noto Sans Mono" is considered unsafe to expose, while "Noto Sans Mono CJK SC" is considered safe.
• Per bug 1829160, font-visibility restrictions shouldn't apply to chrome contexts. Well, I guess devtools are chrome context and they are affected.
• Not sure if reusing devtools between private and normal windows is a good idea.

Comment 1

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1826408

:timhuang, since you are the author of the regressor, bug 1826408, could you take a look? Also, could you set the severity field?

For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.

Comment 2

[Tim Huang[:timhuang]]

Attachment: Bug 1835567 - Don't apply font-visibility restrictions to devtool contexts. r?#layout-reviewers

Comment 3

[Oriol Brufau [:Oriol]]

Fixing devtools is nice, but <textarea> in web pages will still be ugly. Can somebody explain why it's fine to expose "Noto Sans Mono CJK SC" but not "Noto Sans Mono"?

Comment 4

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez [:emilio]]

Yeah the fact that noto sans mono isn't in https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/gfx/thebes/StandardFonts-linux.inc#102 is probably an oversight?

Comment 5

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #4)

Yeah the fact that noto sans mono isn't in https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/gfx/thebes/StandardFonts-linux.inc#102 is probably an oversight?

Offhand it does seem surprising.... oh, wait a sec, I see there's a "Noto Mono" present just above there. I wonder if there was a naming change at some point?

We should confirm that "Noto Sans Mono" is indeed present in a default Ubuntu install, and (assuming so) add it to the list, yes.

Comment 6

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

(In reply to Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame] from comment #5)

We should confirm that "Noto Sans Mono" is indeed present in a default Ubuntu install, and (assuming so) add it to the list, yes.

I just did a "minimal" clean install of Ubuntu 22.04 in a VM, and confirmed that "Noto Sans Mono" is present (as well as "Noto Mono" -- and yes, they are different).

Comment 7

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/fa0414d2d40d
Don't apply font-visibility restrictions to devtool contexts. r=emilio

Comment 8

[Cosmin Sabou [:CosminS]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/fa0414d2d40d