Blank space between fixed-position footer and keyboard, when dynamic toolbar (address bar) has been scrolled out of view, with "resizes-visual" configuration
Categories
(Fenix :: Toolbar, defect, P2)
Tracking
(firefox130 unaffected, firefox131 disabled, firefox132 wontfix, firefox133 wontfix, firefox134 fixed)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox130 | --- | unaffected |
firefox131 | --- | disabled |
firefox132 | --- | wontfix |
firefox133 | --- | wontfix |
firefox134 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: dholbert, Assigned: hiro)
References
(Blocks 2 open bugs, Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: [fxdroid][group3])
Attachments
(6 files)
Steps to reproduce
- Load attached testcase.
- Focus the textfield (so the keyboard appears)
- Scroll to the end of the document (keeping the keyboard in view)
Expected behavior
- There shouldn't be any space beyond the cyan footer.
- In particular, no red should be visible.
Actual behavior
- There is some blank space beyond the cyan footer.
- ...which means red shows up in that blank space when you scroll to the end.
Device information
- Firefox version: 132.0a1
- Android device model: Pixel 6a
- Android OS version: 15
Any additional information?
This is sort of a version of bug 1908249, but this version is just specific to the fixed-position viewport, I think.
This bug is responsible for the still-reproducible part of an issue on the website for Zoom (zoom.us), in bug 1909872 comment 2.
Updated•2 months ago
|
Comment 1•1 month ago
|
||
Any recommendation on how to approach this while not impacting bug 1916154?
Seems like if from Fenix we update what the height of the toolbar can be we'd regress 1916154, if not we have this kind of issues.
If merging the patches proposed from bug 1916154 we'd still allow for either of these problems to show.
Maybe you know better how big this issues are in real life, how many websites would be affected
But seems to me more and more like we need to prioritize fixing both general issues either
- with new APIs from Gecko
- with product/UX deciding to allow showing also the navbar when the keyboard is opened.
Thoughts?
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•1 month ago
|
||
I'll defer to hiro on suggestions for comment 1, since he's got more context about the internal details of the various viewports and the internals/implications of toolbar-hiding than I am.
But I'll note one thing that I'm observing when retesting this today, which probably impacts the way we think about this: this bug actually reproduces regardless of whether the navbar is enabled. (I confirmed that in Nightly now that I know how to disable the navbar in secret-settings menu.) I had initially assumed this was navbar-related due to the similar feel to bug 1908249 (which is navbar-related), but it seems that this bug here may be a distinct issue.
Two notes though:
Maybe you know better how big this issues are in real life, how many websites would be affected
Any website that has bottom:0
fixedpos content (whether for a small footer or a full-screen overlay) and also has textfields would hit this. Probably not in a way that would prevent the site from being usable, but in a way that looks broken at least.
This is reasonably common; plenty of sites have bottom-bars or overlays of some sort.
with product/UX deciding to allow showing also the navbar when the keyboard is opened.
(I'm not a product/UX person, but I suspect this decision is unlikely -- screen real-estate is quite constrained and limited when the keyboard is up, particularly for small phone screens, so any UI that we show needs a strong justification to be there. The address bar has some security/anti-phishing value from a sec perspective, to confirm site-identity as you begin typing a password, for example; but the navbar has no strong reason to be present when the user is typing into a textfield, that I can think of.)
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•1 month ago
|
||
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #2)
But I'll note one thing that I'm observing when retesting this today, which probably impacts the way we think about this: this bug actually reproduces regardless of whether the navbar is enabled.
There were actually several distinct regressions here.
("good" = expected-results, "bad" = actual results, after performing the STR from comment 0. w/ = with, w/o = without.)
-
Regression 1:
Nightly 2024-08-28: good without navbar, good with navbar.
Nightly 2024-08-29: bad without navbar, good with navbar.
Pushlog: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=5c6272143175&tochange=644a484b60cb
(In that pushlog, this was from bug 1884807 -- I confirmed that by toggling theresizes_visual
about:config pref to false, and that makes Nightly 2024-08-29 become "good" without navbar rather than "bad".) -
Regression 2:
Nightly 2024-09-09: bad without navbar, good with navbar.
Nightly 2024-09-10: bad without navbar, bad with navbar.
Pushlog: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=50016ed27344&tochange=ebf0e33ba93e
(I'm not sure offhand which change in that pushlog would have caused the regression in the "with-navbar" configuration to go from good to bad here)
Regardless, though: in contrast to my initial assumptions in comment 0, this bug is not navbar-specific, and instead, this bug is specific to the "resizes-visual" configuration. This bug goes away if I toggle dom.interactive_widget_default_resizes_visual
to false
.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•1 month ago
|
||
--> clarifying bug summary to better-reflect what seems to really be going on (and that this is related to resizes-visual
and not really related to navbar)
Reporter | ||
Updated•1 month ago
|
Comment 5•1 month ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1884807
Comment 6•1 month ago
|
||
Tracking+ for 132 since bug 1916002 is making resizes-visual
ride the trains.
Comment 7•1 month ago
|
||
The bug is marked as tracked for firefox132 (nightly). However, the bug still isn't assigned and has low severity.
:royang, could you please find an assignee and increase the severity for this tracked bug? Given that it is a regression and we know the cause, we could also simply backout the regressor. If you disagree with the tracking decision, please talk with the release managers.
For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Comment 9•1 month ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1884807
Updated•1 month ago
|
Comment 10•1 month ago
•
|
||
We discussed this bug during today's APZ meeting.
- It's unclear whether we can fix this for 132.
- A proper fix may require bug 1921339 which is planned but a larger piece of work likely several months out.
- A more targeted fix is under investigation but we're not sure about its risk level / suitability for uplift to 132 at this point.
- Given the number and severity of the webcompat problems that
resizes-visual
fixes, we would prefer to avoid delaying its release.- When we moved up the release schedule of
resizes-visual
(cc @jrmuizel on this topic), we did it with the awareness that we may have to temporarily accept some regressions which are less severe than the webcompat problems it's fixing. Bug 1915508 and bug 1915509 were known bugs in this category, and we feel this bug is in a similar boat.
- When we moved up the release schedule of
Given the above, could we reconsider the tracking status of this bug, and make it fix-optional
instead?
Comment 11•1 month ago
|
||
I conferred with Daniel and he agrees with your assessment. Thanks for the ping.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•1 month ago
|
||
I did over-restrict this change in bug 1831649 when I implemented interactive-widget.
The code is to trigger a reflow on position:fixed frames to render the position:fixed frames at the proper position when the dynamic toolbar is completely hidden or fully visible. In bug 1831649 I overlooked such cases happen only interactive-widget=resizes-content
cases or cases where the software keyboard is NOT visible. But as you can see this bug, such cases also happen with interactive-widget=resizes-visual
.
A patch is coming.
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•1 month ago
|
||
Unfortunately we can't write any automated tests for this bug as of now since
a) GeckoView test runnner doesn't support dynamic toolbars, thus we can't use
reftest or mochitest here.
b) JUnit test can handle dynamic toolbar movements, but the software keyboardu
doesn't appear in JUnit test for some reasons.
Updated•1 month ago
|
Comment 14•1 month ago
|
||
Comment 15•1 month ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 16•1 month ago
|
||
The patch landed in nightly and beta is affected.
:hiro, is this bug important enough to require an uplift?
- If yes, please nominate the patch for beta approval.
- If no, please set
status-firefox132
towontfix
.
For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•1 month ago
|
||
Looks like the patch didn't fix the issue completely. I might have dropped some important parts of the change. :/
Updated•1 month ago
|
Updated•1 month ago
|
Updated•1 month ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•22 days ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•22 days ago
|
||
On non resizes-content modes while the software keyboard is shown, the layout
viewport is unchanged, thus any position:fixed or sitcky elements which are
stuck the root scroller don't need to be moved in response to the dynamic
toolbar movement.
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•17 days ago
|
||
Updated•17 days ago
|
Comment 21•11 days ago
|
||
Comment 22•11 days ago
|
||
Backed out for causing reftest failures
Backout link: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/f8047162f57463ca16a04358355c2a6be8e18037
Failure log: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer?job_id=480010496&repo=autoland&lineNumber=2917
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•11 days ago
|
||
It is likely there are some reftests which open the software keyboard and the keyboard keeps opening there. :/
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•10 days ago
|
||
Comment 25•10 days ago
|
||
Comment 26•9 days ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d3506f6cff62
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5a51de3207b4
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e6bd5ecd1169
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/df19e86f5cd1
Comment 27•8 days ago
|
||
Hiro, given the size of the change, it looks like this should ride the trains with Fx134? i.e. wontfix for Fx132 and Fx133.
Please let me know if you think otherwise?
Description
•