Closed
Bug 350046
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
[FIX] The display of www.smh.com.au is a mess
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Floats, defect)
Core
Layout: Floats
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: scanorama346, Assigned: MatsPalmgren_bugz)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: regression, testcase)
Attachments
(2 files)
506 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.96 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
review+
roc
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060824 Minefield/3.0a1 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060824 Minefield/3.0a1 Using the 0824 nightly build to browse www.smh.com.au the page is not being displayed properly. It works on the previous nightly, as well as the latest branch nightly build. The components of the page are being placed at the incorrect spots of the screen, which makes the page unreadable. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Open Minefield build 2006082404 2.Go to www.smh.com.au 3.The page is not displaying properly Actual Results: The display is a mess, totally unreadble. http://img458.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trunkim7.jpg Expected Results: It should display the page properly. http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=branchzm1.jpg
Updated•18 years ago
|
Component: General → Layout
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → layout
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Comment 1•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 2•18 years ago
|
||
This worked fine in the 2006-08-23 build, but not anymore in the 2006-08-24 build: http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2006-08-23+05&maxdate=2006-08-24+09&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot Seems to me a regression from patch B in bug 337419.
Comment 3•18 years ago
|
||
regression window works in the firefox-3.0a1.en-US.win32_20060823_1658pdt build fails in the firefox-3.0a1.en-US.win32_20060824_0110pdt build http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&filetype=match&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=20060823+1629&maxdate=20060824+0110&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•18 years ago
|
||
Confirmed regression is from bug 337419 Patch B by backout. I think that by making placeholder's to non-splittable out-of-flows also non-splittable I broke the block margin calculation here: http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=/mozilla/layout/generic/nsBlockReflowState.cpp&rev=3.515&root=/cvsroot&mark=236-238#217 I'll see if I can make a quick fix for this... otherwise I will back out the offending patch (it isn't needed to fix the crash in 337419)...
Assignee: nobody → mats.palmgren
Component: Layout → Layout: Floats
OS: Windows XP → All
Hardware: PC → All
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•18 years ago
|
||
I think Patch B from bug 337419 is in fact correct, it's the indicated block in nsBlockReflowState::ComputeBlockAvailSpace() that needs more work... I think it could probably be simplified to if (NS_FRAME_SPLITTABLE_NON_RECTANGULAR == aSplitType) { but there are several frame types that reports wrong split types IMO. For example ComboboxControl is SPLITTABLE_NON_RECTANGULAR and HTMLButtonControl is SPLITTABLE which looks strange to me (they should both be NON_SPLITTABLE), yes? It would also be interesting to know if have any other frames that are NON_SPLITTABLE and not REPLACED (like the scroll frames now are). I think it would be good if we could avoid testing on split type at all - it's an implementation detail that doesn't really reflect what the CSS spec asks for: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats
Summary: The display of www.smh.com.au is a mess → [FIX] The display of www.smh.com.au is a mess
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•18 years ago
|
||
I think this is all I want to do for now. I'll file a new bug on the other issues in comment 5.
Attachment #235343 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #235343 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #235343 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #235343 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #235343 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #235343 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•18 years ago
|
||
Checked in to trunk at 2006-08-25 15:55 PDT. Filed bug 350246 to followup on the other issues mentioned in comment 5. -> FIXED
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•