Closed Bug 307741 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Tp regression on creature

Categories

(Core :: Layout, defect)

x86
Windows 2000
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: csthomas, Assigned: aaronlev)

References

()

Details

(Whiteboard: Fixed on trunk)

Attachments

(1 file)

Blocks: 305032
Component: General → Layout
Product: Mozilla Application Suite → Core
If the patch for bug 305032 goes on branch, then we'll need to fix this there too...
Flags: blocking1.8b5?
That was checked in on branch as well, yes. I can help look at a fix next week.
Flags: blocking1.8b5? → blocking1.8b5+
aaron, can you look into this? Time is getting short. 
If bug 305032 was the problem, then this might not be an issue anymore, because
those changes were reversed when I realized splitwindow was the original cause.
I'll look into it.
(In reply to comment #5)
> If bug 305032 was the problem, then this might not be an issue anymore, because
> those changes were reversed when I realized splitwindow was the original cause.
> I'll look into it.

Scratch that. I see that those changes are in.
The patch which regressed Tp didn't actually fix bug 305032, it fixed bug
306076 and bug 306235. This patch doesn't regress either of those.

The reason this works is that there are 2 cases when the current element gets
focused:
1) Focus suppression was on in SetFocusedELement, in which case
mNeedCommandUpdate gets set to true. So, it is already true by the time it
reaches SetSuppressFocus
2) Focus suppression was off in SetFocusedElement, in which case
UpdateCommands() already happened for that element
Assignee: general → aaronleventhal
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #197737 - Flags: superreview?(bryner)
Attachment #197737 - Flags: review?(mats.palmgren)
Mats, Brian, see patch and comment 7.
Comment on attachment 197737 [details] [diff] [review]
One less command update on pages which focus in an onload

Removing this line makes sense, it shouldn't be needed
as you say. However, this line works as a sort of wallpaper
since a series of suppress + unsuppress each triggers a
UpdateCommands() so by removing this line there is a
small risc that we uncover bugs elsewhere, in case the
actions of UpdateCommands() depends on "state" that is
only "ready" in the later calls...

r=mats
Attachment #197737 - Flags: review?(mats.palmgren) → review+
let's get this on the trunk and think about it later for the branch.
Flags: blocking1.8b5+ → blocking1.8b5-
Attachment #197737 - Flags: superreview?(bryner) → superreview+
(In reply to comment #9)
> (From update of attachment 197737 [details] [diff] [review] [edit])
> Removing this line makes sense, it shouldn't be needed
> as you say. However, this line works as a sort of wallpaper
> since a series of suppress + unsuppress each triggers a
> UpdateCommands() so by removing this line there is a
> small risc that we uncover bugs elsewhere, in case the
> actions of UpdateCommands() depends on "state" that is
> only "ready" in the later calls...

I don't think so because UpdateCommands() won't mark mNeedsUpdateCommands =
PR_TRUE unless the doc was finished loading. If it didn't get to update commands
because it was busy, this code will still UpdateCommands().

Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: Fixed on trunk
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: