Closed
Bug 201897
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
[FIX] shrink-wrap absolutely positioned boxes, right of container, have 0 width
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Positioned, defect, P1)
Core
Layout: Positioned
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: chrisgio, Assigned: MatsPalmgren_bugz)
References
(Depends on 2 open bugs, )
Details
(Keywords: testcase, Whiteboard: [csswg][reflow-refactor])
Attachments
(16 files, 13 obsolete files)
402 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.48 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
4.77 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.96 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
54.76 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
58.20 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
2.30 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
27.81 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
27.94 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
28.02 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
28.13 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
14.93 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
dbaron
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
8.65 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
6.74 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
712 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.65 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
dbaron
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401 span or div blocks using absolute postioning fail to render properly beyond the initial viewport when scrolling is required. It appears that because the text box isn't rendered, the correct size for the box is never calculated and is thus layed out as if it had no contents. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.View http://strawberrians.org/Map/backup/DisplayMap.php 2.Scroll to right-hand side Actual Results: Markers beyond the initial viewport are rendered at a size as if they contained no CDATA. The numbers are still layed out directly on the image. Expected Results: Size of bounding box should be calculated for all entities, not just those rendered in the current view. There is a work around, a table entity can be placed within the span or div block, forcing proper display as at http://www.strawberrians.org/Map/Map.php
This only happens when they're to the right, not the bottom, and the same problem that affects the popups on http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showbuilds.cgi?tree=SeaMonkey-Ports Technically our behavior is correct according to http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width , but I need to try to get that changed.
Assignee: other → position
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: Layout → Layout: R & A Pos
Ever confirmed: true
Whiteboard: [csswg]
Summary: Render error for absolute positioned block elements beyond initial viewport when scrolled. → shrink-wrap absolutely positioned boxes, right of container, have 0 width
Er, actually, no, our behavior is wrong according to the current spec, because the "available width" is computed after setting 'left' and 'right' to zero.
Blocks: 157681
Updated•21 years ago
|
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: PC → All
*** Bug 182814 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
Reporter, the URL is not accessible. Maybe a duplicate of bug 170927?
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 224984 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
The following code looks a bit odd to me: if (maxWidth <= 0) { maxWidth = 1; } I think it should be: if (maxWidth < 0) { maxWidth = 0; }
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #135027 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #135027 -
Flags: review?(bz-vacation)
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Keywords: testcase
Summary: shrink-wrap absolutely positioned boxes, right of container, have 0 width → [FIX] shrink-wrap absolutely positioned boxes, right of container, have 0 width
Comment 10•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 135027 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 1 Yeah, that should clamp negative values to 0, not what it does. I'm bothered by this whole thing, though. This is setting the computed max-width to the width of the CB if it's unconstrained. But that's not what the spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width says to do... In particular, we are looking at case 3 (auto right/width, non-auto left). Then the spec says to set "right" to zero and solve for width to find "available width". That will give a 0 for available width... Comment 2 doesn't agree with what the spec is actually saying, as far as I can tell (the spec says to set left _or_ right to 0, not to set both to 0).
This whole HTMLReflowState stuff is completely broken and we need a sane system for doing what's described in the spec. I see two changes in the patch: * clean up the code * don't subtract mComputedOffsets. The second one is wrong (according to the spec, at least, and I think it makes some sense). The real problem is that we should be doing (as the spec says): min(max(preferred minimum width, available width), preferred width) but we're really doing: min(available width, preferred width)
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 135027 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 1 Yes, I agree with your comments. My gut feeling was to remove that block too, but then nothing worked so there is missing code elsewhere... I have an almost finished patch that adds that code though... stay tuned.
Attachment #135027 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #135027 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #135027 -
Flags: review?(bz-vacation)
Whiteboard: [csswg] → [csswg][reflow-refactor]
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 228781 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 228781 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Priority: -- → P1
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.7b?
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.7b?
Flags: blocking1.7b-
Flags: blocking1.7?
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
this is heavy lifting that's not likely to make it into the branch as we work towards stabilization.
Flags: blocking1.7? → blocking1.7-
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
Is that something that we can try for 1.8b ?
Comment 17•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 251774 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 18•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 254937 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 19•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 255330 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Assignee: core.layout.r-and-a-pos → mats.palmgren
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•20 years ago
|
||
I have tested this on all URLs + testcases here and on dependants and as far as I can see, it fixes all of them.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #160285 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #160285 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 25•20 years ago
|
||
A couple of notes on Testcase #4: The first green table is now shrink-wrapped (like the DIV), I believe this is the correct rendering. Not visible in the screenshot, but the second green table only resizes when the window width shrinks - not when it grows - I think this a incremental reflow bug in the table code (all the other boxes grow as expected).
Comment 26•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 160285 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 2 >Index: layout/html/base/src/nsAbsoluteContainingBlock.cpp >+ nscoord availWidth = aReflowState.mComputedWidth; ... >+ if (aContainingBlockWidth != -1) { >+ availWidth = aContainingBlockWidth - >+ kidReflowState.mComputedMargin.left - kidReflowState.mComputedMargin.right; That's inconsistent. We should be subtracting the margin in both cases or neither case, I would think. I suspect doing it in both cases is the right thing to do. >+ kidReflowState.mComputedOffsets.right = 0; Why bother? No one will see this value after this point, will they? >+ kidReflowState.mComputedOffsets.left = 0; Same. >- >+ Random whitespace change? Why? I'm a little worried about performance impact for reflow of auto-width abs pos stuff... but I guess we have no bette way to do this for now. :( Marking r- based on the margin comments above, but the overall approach seems right.
Attachment #160285 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #26) > That's inconsistent... I suspect doing it in both cases is right... Yes, good catch - fixed. (added Testcase #5 that exposes that error) > Random whitespace change? Why? There are four spaces on that line. Spacing lines between sections of code should be empty (like they are in surrounding code). > I'm a little worried about performance impact for reflow of auto-width Ok, but the problem is that a second reflow is needed in most cases where we should apply the shrink-to-fit algorithm. I have experimented with this a lot and I could only find one case that can be optimised: When we get into the |else if (kidDesiredSize.width < availWidth)| block - (see patch) the second reflow is not needed if the CB is constrained, that is when |aReflowState.mComputedWidth != NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE|. At first I also thought that were more cases but I always found some edge case that would break with only one reflow. I'm attaching this patch mostly for comparison. I have a new version where I folded the added logic into the reflow code below and that implements the optimisation above, but that code is a bit messy right now...
Attachment #160285 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•20 years ago
|
||
FWIW, doing 1 initial and 2 or more incremental reflows at each URL/testcase: if (kidDesiredSize.mMaxElementWidth > availWidth) { 598 times } else if (kidDesiredSize.width < availWidth) { 372 times } else 317 times
Comment 30•20 years ago
|
||
Mats, you could test the performance impact, if any, by taking the testcases at http://www.mozilla.org/performance/test-cases/dhtml/layers1/index.html and http://www.mozilla.org/performance/test-cases/dhtml/layers5/index.html, changing the widths to shrink-wrap, and maybe increasing the number of steps so that you can measure the time elapsed (using Date.now(), etc). I agree that this seems to be the only way to do what we want in the current architecture, but I'd be curious to know whether my worries about performance are founded... ;)
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•20 years ago
|
||
The optimisation I thought was possible failed on the *right* table in Testcase #4 on bug 197022 (attachment 119772 [details]). So, this patch always reflows twice in shrink-to-fit situations. The difference to the last version is that I have folded the two reflows into one code block. This was to implement the (failed) optimisation but I still think this version is better. Now we have that view positioning code before the first reflow which I assume matters (flicker?). Also, if we find a case we can optimise later it will be easier to add. A note on the existing code: I'm surprised that nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::ReflowAbsoluteFrame is called twice for every nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::IncrementalReflow (which means we will reflow shrink-to-fit boxes four times). Is there a reason for this? (I will do performance measurements on the URLs you gave with this patch)
Attachment #160952 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 33•20 years ago
|
||
> I'm surprised that nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::ReflowAbsoluteFrame
> is called twice
The first call is because we have a reflow command for the absolute list
(reflows all dirty absolute frames) and the second is because the reflow path
contains one of our child frames, right? Could we flip those two chunks around?
Presumably any frames we flow because they're in the reflow path would get
marked clean after the reflow and we wouldn't flow them twice? Would that screw
up the eReflowReason_Initial twiddling in the dirty block, though?
Alternately, could we prune frames we reflow because they're dirty from the path
so that they're ignored in the second block?
Assignee | ||
Comment 34•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 35•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 36•20 years ago
|
||
SHIFT-Reloading the Perf testcases 8 times (debug build), gives on average: Without patch: With patch rev. 4: testcase1: 9615ms 9525ms testcase2: 9880ms 9918ms I don't think those testcases do what we want to measure...
Comment 37•20 years ago
|
||
Mats, in those testcases reflow happens only once (so most of the time is spent elsewhere). You need to put successive steps on timeouts to give the event loop time to reflow.
Would it be faster to make things work like they do for floats, in nsBlockFrame::ReflowFloat? (Trying to make the code make sense before I land the reflow refactoring stuff may in fact be a bad idea (for performance, at least).)
Assignee | ||
Comment 39•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #160962 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 40•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #160964 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•20 years ago
|
||
SHIFT-Reloading the Perf testcases 3 times (debug build), gives on average: Without patch: With patch rev. 4: Perf test 1: R=1:23:80 CP=5000 R=1:31:30 CP=5453 Perf test 2: R=0:47:80 CP=2870 R=0:51:10 CP=3050 which seems to indicate reflow times increased about 8% R="Real time" CP="CP time" as given by the nsTimer framework. (I hacked PresShell::ProcessReflowCommands so it timed all reflow commands into 'mReflowWatch' incrementally). I also verfied that I got the right number of calls to nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::ReflowAbsoluteFrame() this time :-)
Comment 42•20 years ago
|
||
OK. 8% isn't so bad...
Attachment #160285 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Assignee | ||
Comment 43•20 years ago
|
||
This is the version that David mentioned in comment 38. 1st reflow is constrained to the available width, a 2nd reflow is only done if |kidDesiredSize.mMaxElementWidth > availWidth| (constrained to MEW this time). I think the performance impact of this change can be ignored since a second reflow likely isn't needed for the majority of abs.pos. boxes. Note that there is one subtle difference to the approach in rev. 4 - percentage-width tables grow to fill the entire avaiable width rather than being shrink-wrapped. See Testcase #4 or #5 - this patch does not change the current rendering whereas rev. 4 renders the first table only as wide as the table content requires.
Assignee | ||
Comment 44•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 45•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 46•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 47•20 years ago
|
||
SHIFT-Reloading the Perf testcases 3 times (debug build), gives on average: Without patch: With patch rev. 5: Perf test 3: R=0:36:00 CP=2167 R=1:29:20 CP=5330 Perf test 4: R=0:23:40 CP=1350 R=0:49:50 CP=2983 which seems to indicate that reflow times increased about 200-300% *for this specific case*. Could it be that the current rendering of Perf test 3/4 degenerates most boxes into width=0, which perhaps can explain why it is so much faster? Anyway, I'm guessing this case is rare...
Comment 48•20 years ago
|
||
> Could it be that the current rendering of Perf test 3/4 degenerates
> most boxes into width=0
It does.
I agree that this case is not something we should be worried about offhand.
Testcase 1 and Testcase 2 are much more representative of things we'd actually
run into.
Assignee | ||
Comment 49•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 161216 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 5 (diff -uw) + if (maxWidth <= 0) { + maxWidth = 0; That should be '<' of course...
Assignee | ||
Comment 50•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #161215 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 51•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #161216 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #161311 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #161311 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Assignee | ||
Comment 52•20 years ago
|
||
Your thoughts regarding the difference between the green table/div in
attachment 160284 [details] would be appreciated also.
Seems like the big loop you added should be a do { ... } while (0); loop. (More comments later.)
Comment 54•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 161311 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 6 (works like floats) This looks reasonable assuming you've tested what happens when width and right are auto, left is set, and the min-width is set to a value greater than the values you're clamping kidReflowState.mComputedMaxWidth to. That is, can you end up in a state where the kid reflow state has a bigger mComputedMinWidth than mComputedMaxWidth? If so, you probably need to clamp the mComputedMinWidth too or something.
Attachment #161311 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Even if it did, 'min-width' beats 'max-width' which beats 'width'.
Assignee | ||
Comment 56•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 161311 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 6 (works like floats) Hmm, there is still something wrong with this patch... Compare the "Screenshot of Testcase #3" attachment. The left- and right-most boxes should shrink-wrap around the "LongWord" + padding (the number that follows should be on the next line).
Attachment #161311 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #161311 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #161312 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 57•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #53) > Seems like the big loop you added should be a do { ... } while (0); loop. That wouldn't work since I start the second reflow with a "continue".
Assignee | ||
Comment 58•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #54) > (From update of attachment 161311 [details] [diff] [review]) > That is, can you end up in a state where the kid reflow state has a bigger > mComputedMinWidth than mComputedMaxWidth? Yes, that occurs for the magenta colored boxes in Testcase #3. Fixing it made no difference to the actual layout but the reflow state should be correct at all times of course. Nice catch!
Assignee | ||
Comment 59•20 years ago
|
||
This is the corrected version that fixes the problem mentioned in comment 56. This now works as floats do as far as I can see, the problem is that the float shrink-to-fit does not work in some cases. (I spawned bug 268499). I'm attaching it just for comparison.
Assignee | ||
Comment 60•20 years ago
|
||
This is a slightly updated version of rev. 4, two changes: 1. It uses ComputeContainingBlockRectangle() instead of rolling its own. 2. It uses an enum for the three states of the loop to make it easier to follow. This fixes all the URLs and testcases and the performance should be equal to what I presented in comment 41 (reflow times increases 8%).
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #160958 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #160959 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #165224 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 61•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #165228 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #165228 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 62•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 165228 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 8 r=bzbarsky, but perhaps the reflow state should store the containing block so it doesn't have to be computed twice? File a followup bug on that?
Attachment #165228 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Comment 63•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 271139 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Attachment #165228 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron) → superreview+
sr=dbaron (based on quick skim and bz's review), although it would be nice if you could avoid the second pass under most conditions.
Assignee | ||
Comment 65•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #62) > (From update of attachment 165228 [details] [diff] [review]) > r=bzbarsky, but perhaps the reflow state should store the containing block so > it doesn't have to be computed twice? File a followup bug on that? > Did you mean the call to ComputeContainingBlockRectangle? if so, that is only done when "aContainingBlockWidth == -1" so it should only occur once.
Assignee | ||
Comment 66•20 years ago
|
||
Checked in attachment 165228 [details] [diff] [review] at 2004-11-26 15:28 PDT. (except the 0xdeadbeef warning which someone else had already fixed.) Filed bug 271924 on the table {inc} problem mentioned in comment 25. Filed bug 271927 on the double reflow problem in nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::IncrementalReflow (this is not the double reflow for shrink-to-fit), see comment 31 and comment 33. Filed bug 271933 on avoiding some of the shrink-to-fit reflows, see comment 64. -> FIXED
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 67•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 250498 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 68•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 249922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This broke the tabs at the top of http://www.mozilla.org/ (tested with a local backout). I don't see why it should have broken them.
Comment 70•20 years ago
|
||
Leak stats also jumped a bit on brad.
(In reply to comment #70) > Leak stats also jumped a bit on brad. --NEW-LEAKS-----------------------------------leaks------leaks%----------------- BandRect 576 -
Assignee | ||
Comment 72•20 years ago
|
||
I filed bug 271990 on the problem at http://www.mozilla.org/ Is it possible that that could also be the cause for the leak?
No.
Comment 74•20 years ago
|
||
> Did you mean the call to ComputeContainingBlockRectangle? Yes. > if so, that is only done when "aContainingBlockWidth == -1" so it should only > occur once. Doesn't it also happen in the reflow state constructor? The result is then stored in the copies of aContainingBlockWidth/Height that were passed to that function and doesn't make it back out to this code, as far as I recall...
Comment 75•20 years ago
|
||
This caused regression bug 272099 ?
Comment 76•20 years ago
|
||
Yes, see comment 69 and comment 72
Comment 77•20 years ago
|
||
Could this also have caused bug 272596?
Depends on: 272596
So I'm inclining to think that we should back this out. It's caused a bunch of regressions that don't seem to have obvious fixes, and I'd rather not ship 1.8 with a completely different set of bugs than 1.7 and then fix them all with the reflow refactoring landing right afterwards. Then again, there may be some simple fix for those regressions (perhaps by doing it just like floats do?), but I don't see it immediately.
Assignee | ||
Comment 79•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #78) > So I'm inclining to think that we should back this out Yes, I'm not really comfortable with the regressions either. I still believe the patch is the right way to do it though - it's the underlying code that doesn't play nicely (tables and placement of right floats). But I could not find an easy way to fix that. > (perhaps by doing it just like floats do?) I'll post an updated version of "Patch rev. 7" that works like floats. Please note that this is not entirely correct though (bug 268499), but it does fix almost all of the intended R&A bugs without having the problems reported in the regression bugs.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 80•20 years ago
|
||
I also fixed the problem Boris pointed out regarding the reflow reason: + aReason = eReflowReason_Resize; + continue; // Do a second reflow constrained to MEW.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #167700 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #167700 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 81•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 167700 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 9 (works like floats) >Index: layout/html/base/src/nsAbsoluteContainingBlock.cpp >+ situation = NOT_SHRINK_TO_FIT; // This is the last reflow >+ kidReflowState.mComputedWidth = PR_MIN(availWidth, kidReflowState.mComputedMaxWidth); Doesn't this need to make sure mComputedWidth doesn't drop below mComputedMinWidth? Other than that, r=bzbarsky.
Attachment #167700 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Have you tested that this does the right thing in all 4 cases (fixed width either with width or non-auto offsets, intrinsic sizing to min-width, intrinsic sizing to container, intrinsic sizing to max-width) with border and padding? Some of the border/padding manipulation looks a little funny (should it really be subtracted from mew to get the new availwidth?). Setting availWidth to aReflowState.mComputedWidth doesn't make much sense to me. Shouldn't it just be NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE if there's no containing block width? Or does it not make a difference since we'll either use the computed width or the width is already NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE? If so, maybe NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE is clearer. I don't claim to understand this, but if it works I guess it's ok.
Comment on attachment 167700 [details] [diff] [review] Patch rev. 9 (works like floats) sr=dbaron with bz's comment addressed so we can get this in and stop accumulating regression reports, but I hope you can look at the issues I raised sometime soon.
Attachment #167700 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron) → superreview+
Assignee | ||
Comment 84•20 years ago
|
||
I fixed the min-width problem that Boris pointed out, and also added back a couple of lines that I missed from rev. 7. I have tested the cases requested in comment 82 in addition to the block regression tests, all the targeted R&A bugs and the regressions caused by revision 8 and all of that seems to work as intended now. I found one case where I expected a margin-right/left:auto element to be centered, but this does not seem to work before either. I'll file that separately if needed.
Attachment #167700 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 85•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #84) > I found one case where I expected a margin-right/left:auto element to be > centered, but this does not seem to work before either. That's bug 182748...
Assignee | ||
Comment 86•20 years ago
|
||
Checked in "Patch rev. 10" to fix the regressions, 2004-12-05 16:27 PDT.
Comment 87•20 years ago
|
||
Looks like this regressed my pages at http://www.fynf.at/ (they're a nice testcase for a few layout things actually), as the right darker block/bar (which has position:absolute) now gets a computed value of "right:30px" here, though it explicitely has "right:0em" set. with fixed width, margin, and padding set, and left not set (auto), I'd expect the block to be at the right edge of the view (and have "right:0px" as computed value)...
Comment 88•20 years ago
|
||
Erm, forgot to say, my regression happens with the last "Patch rev. 10" checkin and didn't happen before, I believe it worked correctly before that latest patch.
Comment 89•20 years ago
|
||
Sorry to add another comment, but I noticed that the left edge gets computed correctly in my regression, but "width:120px;right:0em;" get computed to "width:90px;right:30px;", according to DOM inspector.
Comment 90•20 years ago
|
||
So the problem is that we're overriding mComputedMaxWidth when the width is set.... (the else if (NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE != availWidth) branch is taken for NOT_SHRINK_TO_FIT, which seems wrong).
Assignee | ||
Comment 91•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 92•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #90) > So the problem is that we're overriding mComputedMaxWidth when the width is > set.... (the else if (NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE != availWidth) branch is taken for > NOT_SHRINK_TO_FIT, which seems wrong). That was indeed the problem, thanks Boris.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #168077 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #168077 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 93•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 168077 [details] [diff] [review] Patch B rev. 1 (correction for rev. 10) Yeah, this looks better. Maybe toss in an assert in that branch that availWidth is not NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE. It shouldn't be, based on code inspection, but...
Attachment #168077 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 94•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #93) > Yeah, this looks better. Maybe toss in an assert in that branch that > availWidth is not NS_UNCONSTRAINEDSIZE. I actually had a printf for that during testing and it didn't show up, I'll add it all the same...
Comment 95•20 years ago
|
||
If it _did_ show up, we'd want a check, not an assert... ;)
Assignee | ||
Comment 96•20 years ago
|
||
With rev. 10 we got back our lost BandRects: --FIXED-LEAKS---------------------------------leaks------leaks%----- BandRect 0 -100.00% http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1102301220.26523.gz&fulltext=1
Attachment #168077 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron) → superreview+
Comment on attachment 168077 [details] [diff] [review] Patch B rev. 1 (correction for rev. 10) don't forget to land this. :-) (The file is in layout/generic/ now.)
Assignee | ||
Comment 98•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 168077 [details] [diff] [review] Patch B rev. 1 (correction for rev. 10) Added an assertion and checked in 2004-12-12 07:57 PDT
Assignee | ||
Comment 99•20 years ago
|
||
I have filed the remaining case separately, bug 275179. -> FIXED
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago → 20 years ago
No longer depends on: 271924
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 100•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 296497 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 101•19 years ago
|
||
I suspect this may have caused the issue in bug 325940.
Depends on: 325486
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•