Closed Bug 259683 Opened 20 years ago Closed 20 years ago

padding-top results in space below float too

Categories

(Core :: Layout: Floats, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: none98765, Assigned: dbaron)

References

()

Details

(4 keywords)

Attachments

(3 files, 2 obsolete files)

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10 In the page at http://www.amrichmond.com/test there is a gap between the tabbed interface that is created with stylesheets. Gap appears as additional padding below tab images, but above the bottom of the bg image (which appears as a bottom border) This gap does not appear in Firefox 0.9.3 nor in other browsers - just in the newest pre-release of Firefox 0.10 Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. went to web page 2. 3. Actual Results: gap appeared Expected Results: no gap CSS validates as correct using : W3C CSS Validation at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ HTML validates at : http://validator.w3.org/
If this is a bug, it is not Firefox specific. Current trunk builds show the same rendering. =>Browser
Assignee: firefox → nobody
Component: General → Layout
Keywords: qawanted
Product: Firefox → Browser
QA Contact: firefox.general → core.layout
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Can you create a *reduced* testcase out of that file? In particular, the html file links to 2 distinct separate stylesheets with over 48 css rules and many more declarations; some of these are contradictory. Is the behavior related to javascript? If not, can you remove the relation to imagemanip.js file? "When you've cut away as much HTML, CSS, and JavaScript as you can, and cutting away any more causes the bug to disappear, you're done." What is a Simplified Test Case, and How Do I Make One? http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/bugathon.html#testcase
Attached file Testcase
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: Layout → Layout: Floats
Ever confirmed: true
Keywords: qawantedtestcase
OS: Windows XP → All
QA Contact: core.layout → core.layout.floats
Summary: Incorrect spacing /handling of CSS elements → padding-top results in space below floater too
Regression window: 2004-06-19-06 -- 2004-06-21-05. No obvious candidates in that time frame, bug 140611 looks closest.
Keywords: regression
Yep, backing out bug 140611 fixes this bug...
Hardware: PC → All
*** Bug 263888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Blocks: 263888
Attached file a more common testcase (obsolete) —
Adding another testcase which will be more common in the wild. As bug 140611 was checked in on the 1.7 branch (including aviary), Firefox 1.0 will have this bug if it isn't fixed. I don't know exactly how many websites will suffer from it, but I think this might do with some attention.
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0?
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041002 Firefox/0.10.1 (TierMann) I see red under the green div as well.
Attached patch Fix (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Comparing code from before and after, this patch seems obvious (the check for shrinkwraping had been moved outside the check for RTLness - accidentally, I assume), but I am quite unaware of the larger context which might come into play. Luckily, that's what review is for. :) (Patch tested on testcases for bug 140611 and this one.)
Attachment #162674 - Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #162674 - Flags: review?(smontagu)
Comment on attachment 162674 [details] [diff] [review] Fix I don't think my r+ is worth much in layout code, better if dbaron gives r+sr.
Attachment #162674 - Flags: review?(smontagu) → review?(dbaron)
Yikes! Why did bug 140611 land on the aviary branch?
This patch fixes bug 263888 as well, btw.
Summary: padding-top results in space below floater too → padding-top results in space below float too
So what's the deal here? Are you saying that this was always broken for RTL, but was changed to be broken for everybody, and you now want to change it to be broken only for RTL? Or does this code actually make sense? If so, why?
*blinks and goes test* Oh, heh. Yeah, you're right. This has always been broken for rtl, and all this patch does is return to non-brokenness for non-rtl (while not damaging the changes from bug 140611). Obviously a real fix will be necessary for the rtl case at some point, but I suspect I'm nowhere near qualified to create such. Despite that, I'll go and look if I can anyway, but whatever I could come up with would probably be too risky for the aviary and 1.7 branches. This patch on the other hand shouldn't be, and is in my estimate vastly preferable to both backing out bug 140611 and to doing nothing. *ponders* Actually, would there be any harm in simply removing the entire check and return there? I focused on returning to the status quo in my previous patch, under the assumption that such should be safe and correct, but as it isn't...
Unsurprisingly, removing that check completely has disastrous results for rtl cases.
sounds like we need to take this patch or back out bug 140611
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0? → blocking-aviary1.0+
So I suspect that the patch that caused this regression is actually OK (although it missed a whole bunch of obvious simplifications in HorizontallyAlignFrames so I'm not exactly confident). It seems the difference is that for some reason (I don't know why yet) it's triggering the "redoFloat" code within nsBlockFrame::ReflowFloat. At least that's what I think is causing the repetition based on a reflow log -- I didn't check yet. And there's probably some underlying bug related to that code, perhaps involving space manager translation.
Assignee: nobody → dbaron
OK, wrong repetition code -- it's something wrong with the code in nsBlockFrame::ComputeFinalSize, I suspect.
Actually, after looking at HorizontallyAlignFrames and the meaning of BRS_SHRINKWRAPWIDTH a little more, I think the check ought to be unneeded.
I think this is a more accurate restoration of the old code.
Attachment #163083 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #163083 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #163083 - Flags: approval1.7.x?
Attachment #163083 - Flags: approval-aviary?
Attachment #163083 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #163083 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #163083 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #163083 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 163083 [details] [diff] [review] slightly more accurate restoration of old code a=asa for aviary and 1.7 branch checkins.
Attachment #163083 - Flags: approval1.7.x?
Attachment #163083 - Flags: approval1.7.x+
Attachment #163083 - Flags: approval-aviary?
Attachment #163083 - Flags: approval-aviary+
Fix checked in to trunk, 2004-10-23 16:23 -0700. Fix checked in to AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH, 2004-10-23 16:24 -0700. Fix checked in to MOZILLA_1_7_BRANCH, 2004-10-23 16:24 -0700. Filed bug 265796 to follow up for RTL cases.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Attachment #162674 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #162674 - Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #162674 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
*** Bug 263888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: