Closed
Bug 364512
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
ASSERTION: unexpected frame type: 'IS_TABLE_CELL(frameType) || nsLayoutAtoms::tableRowFrame == frameType || nsLayoutAtoms::tableRowGroupFrame == frameType || nsLayoutAtoms::tableFrame == frameType'
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Tables, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: bernd_mozilla)
References
Details
(Keywords: assertion, testcase)
Attachments
(2 files)
|
245 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
|
1.31 KB,
patch
|
dbaron
:
review+
dbaron
:
superreview+
dbaron
:
approval1.9+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Loading this testcase triggers:
###!!! ASSERTION: unexpected frame type: 'IS_TABLE_CELL(frameType) || nsLayoutAtoms::tableRowFrame == frameType || nsLayoutAtoms::tableRowGroupFrame == frameType || nsLayoutAtoms::tableFrame == frameType', file /Users/admin/trunk/mozilla/layout/tables/nsTableFrame.cpp, line 1798
| Reporter | ||
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
yep the assertion
1794 NS_ASSERTION(IS_TABLE_CELL(frameType) ||
1795 nsLayoutAtoms::tableRowFrame == frameType ||
1796 nsLayoutAtoms::tableRowGroupFrame == frameType ||
1797 nsLayoutAtoms::tableFrame == frameType,
1798 "unexpected frame type");
is not complete, as rowgroups can be wrapped in a scroll frame
Assignee: nobody → bernd_mozilla
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: superreview?
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: review?
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: superreview?
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: review?
This assertion is documenting an assumption that I was making when I wrote the code -- will the special height reflow actually propagate through the scrollframe correctly, or is additional code needed for that?
I really should have rewritten the comment above RequestSpecialHeightReflow to reflect what I was thinking. I'll need to have a closer look tomorrow and try to remember.
Comment on attachment 249334 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
I'
Comment on attachment 249334 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
I'm trying to think of what will be broken in this case.
So far, I think that:
* if the table is IsGeometryDirty, we'll need to mark the row group (and scroll frame containing it?) as NS_FRAME_HAS_DIRTY_CHILDREN to make the reflow propagate down to it.
We may also need to propagate the mHResize flag the way nsTableRowGroupFrame::ReflowChildren does, although maybe we should replace that propagation with SetGeometryDirty.
But this patch looks fine. I can't think of anything else broken in this case, although there probably is something since I'd forgotten about it.
I suppose I should make sure there are bugs on file for the above problems...
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: review+
I filed bug 386401.
Comment on attachment 249334 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
its a safe change, it adjusts the assertion to the code reality.
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Comment on attachment 249334 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
a1.9=dbaron
Attachment #249334 -
Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•18 years ago
|
||
fix checked in
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•