309445 - Crash when dynamically adding position:fixed to xforms:action [@ nsSpaceManager::GetTranslation]

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(Core Graveyard :: XForms, defect)

Description

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

See upcoming testcase.
It crashes current Mozilla trunk build with current trunk xforms.xpi installed,
for me when hovering over the text.

Comment 1

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Attachment: testcase

Talkback ID's I got: TB9572905Z and TB9572903M

Comment 2

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Probably related to XTF.
We (I?) should  convert xf:action to use XBL.

Comment 3

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

From talkback ID's:
nsSVGPointList::GetValueString 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/content/svg/content/src/nsSVGPointList.cpp,
line 235]
nsBlockFrame::Destroy 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/generic/nsBlockFrame.cpp,
line 291]
nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::IncrementalReflow 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/generic/nsAbsoluteContainingBlock.cpp,
line 387]
nsAbsoluteContainingBlock::ReflowingAbsolutesOnly 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/generic/nsAbsoluteContainingBlock.cpp,
line 242]
nsRootBoxFrame::QueryInterface 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/xul/base/src/nsRootBoxFrame.cpp,
line 338]
IncrementalReflow::~IncrementalReflow 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/base/nsPresShell.cpp,
line 817]
PresShell::ProcessReflowCommands 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/base/nsPresShell.cpp,
line 6618]
PresShell::HandleDOMEventWithTarget 
[c:/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla/layout/base/nsPresShell.cpp,
line 6267]
0x778b0c24

Comment 4

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Probably related to XTF.
> We (I?) should  convert xf:action to use XBL.

Why does the action element have any visual representation at all? I mean why do
we create a div for it?

Comment 5

[aaronr]

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Probably related to XTF.
> > We (I?) should  convert xf:action to use XBL.
> 
> Why does the action element have any visual representation at all? I mean why do
> we create a div for it?

Put in by Olli as part of the xf:message implementation:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269428.  Message manages its own
DIV w/o using this one, though.

Comment 6

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > Probably related to XTF.
> > > We (I?) should  convert xf:action to use XBL.
> > 
> > Why does the action element have any visual representation at all? I mean why do
> > we create a div for it?
> 
> Put in by Olli as part of the xf:message implementation:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269428.  Message manages its own
> DIV w/o using this one, though.

Olli?

Comment 7

[Adam Guthrie]

Attachment: stacktrace from testcase

Comment 8

[aaronr]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > > Probably related to XTF.
> > > > We (I?) should  convert xf:action to use XBL.
> > > 
> > > Why does the action element have any visual representation at all? I mean why do
> > > we create a div for it?
> > 
> > Put in by Olli as part of the xf:message implementation:
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269428.  Message manages its own
> > DIV w/o using this one, though.
> 
> Olli?

Put in for hint, I believe.

Comment 9

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Testcase doesn't crash anymore, marking WFM.