change display property to none and block breaks table cell rendering

VERIFIED FIXED

Status

()

Core
Layout: Tables
VERIFIED FIXED
14 years ago
10 years ago

People

(Reporter: Osvaldo Santana Neto, Assigned: Bernd)

Tracking

({testcase})

Trunk
x86
Linux
testcase
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
blocking1.8b4 -
blocking1.8b5 -
in-testsuite +

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(7 attachments, 3 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030317
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030317

Try check/uncheck for many times the radioboxes in page:
http://r2d2.rantac.com.br/ispman/bug.html and you will see the problem.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. enter in http://r2d2.rantac.com.br/ispman/bug.html
2. check/uncheck radioboxes in page (many times)
3. done

Actual Results:  
The page render crashes (table column)

Expected Results:  
Disable/Enable table columns visibility.
The page is setting table elements (tr and td) to be display:block.  We have
some existing issues with this (not disposing of pseudo-frames properly), but
even if those were fixed the page layout would still be "broken" (because CSS
table display types are completely broken in IE and the page expects the IE
behavior).  Using table-row and table-cell for the display, as appropriate, will
work in Mozilla and other CSS2-compliant browsers (but not in CSS1 browsers like
IE/Windows).

Over to tables to dup to the bug on pseudo-frame issues.
Assignee: dom_bugs → table
Component: DOM Style → Layout: Tables
QA Contact: ian → madhur
Whiteboard: DUPEME

Comment 2

14 years ago
checked the url on winXP and Linux on 2003-05-28trunk builds 
WFM!

Osvaldo, please check this again in the latest build and if u do get a crash,
provide the talkback crash id number or the stack signature.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

14 years ago
testcase has gone :-(
(Reporter)

Comment 4

14 years ago
Sorry for incovenience.

The testcase has moved to:
http://web.rantac.com.br/ab/bug.html
(Assignee)

Comment 5

14 years ago
Osvaldo could you please attach the testcase to the bug just hit the Create a
New Attachment link and follow the instruction. I suspect however that this bug
is a dupe of 77019 which hopefully will be fixed in a near future
Depends on: 77019
(Reporter)

Comment 6

14 years ago
Created attachment 140618 [details]
Testcase
(Assignee)

Comment 7

14 years ago
Osvaldo, is your testcase just a html page? attach the html instead of the
archive please. I can't open the archive.
(Reporter)

Comment 8

14 years ago
Created attachment 140740 [details]
testcase html file
(Reporter)

Comment 9

14 years ago
Created attachment 140741 [details]
testcase css file
(Reporter)

Comment 10

14 years ago
Created attachment 140742 [details]
testcase js file
(Reporter)

Comment 11

14 years ago
the testcase is:
1 .html
1 .css
1 .js

I will attach the 3 items separated...
Created attachment 140746 [details]
HTML file in usable form (pointing to the other 2)
Attachment #140618 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #140740 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Resummarizing to make it clear what the bug is about.  Testcase never uses
"visibility" and this has nothing to do with bug 77019
Depends on: 162063
No longer depends on: 77019
Summary: change visibility attribute crashes elements rendering → change display property to none and block breaks table cell rendering

Comment 14

13 years ago
Created attachment 147399 [details]
reproduces bug

Comment 15

13 years ago
Windows XP and 2000, current Mozilla and Foxfire. I could not get a crash, but I
get the described layout problems. Can we move this to confirmed? (attached
another reproduction case)
We can't move it to confirmed, since it's a duplicate (at least the layout
problems in your testcase are duplicates).  Note the DUPEME keyword.

Also note that even if the layout problems were fixed your testcase would still
be "broken" because putting both of those cells in the first column when that
"show" function runs is correct per the CSS spec.
(Assignee)

Updated

13 years ago
Keywords: testcase
(Assignee)

Comment 17

12 years ago
Created attachment 189025 [details]
reduced testcase
(Assignee)

Comment 18

12 years ago
Created attachment 189538 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

This fixes a problem in block layout, but leaves the frame construction issue.
The block problem is that the block caches the mAscent and if there are no
lines inside the block the cached value is reported to the containing table
cell.
(Assignee)

Updated

12 years ago
Assignee: layout.tables → bernd_mozilla
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Bernd, you want to spin that off into a separate bug, or check it in under this one?
(Assignee)

Comment 20

12 years ago
Just the block reflow issue here and 162063 for the frame issue. The fix here
will not complete give the space back as the remaining anonymous table cells
will have their cellpadding cellspacing still applied.
(Assignee)

Updated

12 years ago
Attachment #189538 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #189538 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #189538 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #189538 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #189538 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #189538 - Flags: review+
(Assignee)

Comment 21

12 years ago
fix checked in the reminder is bug 162063
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Comment 22

12 years ago
Maybe this should be done on branch

the patch seems to be simple (any regression) ?

REOPEN ?
Flags: blocking1.8b5?
Flags: blocking1.8b4?
> Maybe this should be done on branch

If you feel that way, request approval for the patch (see the flags on the patch
itself) and explain in the approval request why this is needed and why it's very
safe.

> the patch seems to be simple (any regression) ?

We probably won't know for at least a few weeks.  Unless you have a source of
knowledge I'm not aware of.

> REOPEN ?

Why?  It's fixed.  Whatever happens on branch doesn't affect the resolution,
which tracks things on trunk.

Not a branch blocker in any case, unless this is a very common problem out
there.  If it is, please point out the sites broken by it.
Flags: blocking1.8b5?
Flags: blocking1.8b5-
Flags: blocking1.8b4?
Flags: blocking1.8b4-
(Assignee)

Comment 24

12 years ago
The reduced testcase shows red again. As I did not checkin the test into the layout regression tests I can not pinpoint when this went bad again.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
"DUPEME" seems obsolete if work's going on here.
Whiteboard: DUPEME
Blocks: 300909
(Assignee)

Comment 26

11 years ago
the regression in the reduced testcase has been fixed by the reflow branch
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 12 years ago11 years ago
Depends on: 300030
Flags: in-testsuite?
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Created attachment 257571 [details] [diff] [review]
Reftests

These are based on the last testcase posted to this bug. I'm a bit concerned that this test will have to be marked as random, though. I've noticed that when I load the test, if I refresh the page quickly, I will sometimes see a very brief flash or red under the green cell. Depending on when the reftest takes the screenshot, that might pose a problem.
Attachment #257571 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Created attachment 257572 [details] [diff] [review]
Reftests round 2

Whoops, forgot to remove the table background color from the reference
Attachment #257571 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #257572 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #257571 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Comment on attachment 257572 [details] [diff] [review]
Reftests round 2

Checked in after testing in pre- and post-reflow-branch builds.
Attachment #257572 - Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.