232317 - [FIX]there are height and width properties of images that not being loaded

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect, P3)

Description

[Sekundes]

User-Agent:       
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040120 Firebird/0.8.0+

.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.try testcase(URL).
2.right click on "alternate text" and select properties.
Actual Results:  
Width: 1240704px
Height: 4865812px

What're they...?

Expected Results:  
width and height properties should not be shown in this case, just like Mozilla.

Comment 1

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

Using:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040114 Firebird/0.7+

...on Windows XP, I see no height/width properties; all I see are the Location,
Size of file (unavailable), and Alternate text (Alternate text).

I'm going to install an updated build in a second, so I'll see if it works in
there and report back if it doesn't.

Comment 2

[Jason Barnabe (np)]

Confirming on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7a)
Gecko/20040120 Firebird/0.7+ and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040118

Moving to Browser - Layout: Images, I guess.

Comment 3

[José Jeria]

Is this a regression?

Comment 4

[Christian :Biesinger (don't email me, ping me on IRC)]

heh, a fun bug
nsHTMLImageElement::GetWidthHeight totally fails to deal with the case of
"neither frame nor width/height attribute given", and just returns garbage in
such a case.

not sure what best behaviour would be, maybe returning 0 would be better... or
throw an exception, but can pages deal with some_image.width possibly throwing
an exception?

Comment 5

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Attachment: Make sure to init the return value

Comment 6

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Returning an exception is really not an option.... ;)

Comment 7

[Johnny Stenback (:jst)]

Comment on attachment 140010 [details] [diff] [review]
Make sure to init the return value

Either this, or initialize size at the top of the method, potentially saving us
from another similar bug in this method in the future. I'm not sure which one
is less code, performance hardly matters here.

Comment 8

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Attachment: Good point; doing this up front is indeed safer.

Comment 9

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Checked that in.