374147 - Out of view addresses in list items reported as Visible with wrong location

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Thunderbird :: Message Compose Window, defect)

Description

[Rick]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070225 Firefox/2.0.0.2 (Swiftfox)
Build Identifier: version 3 alpha 1 (20070315) -- http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/nightly/2007-03-15-03-trunk/thunderbird-3.0a1.en-US.win32.zip

If there are enough addressees to force there to be a list box to contain them, those lines (list items) that are out of view are actually reported to be visible and their location is given as the same as the list itself.  (That much was also a problem in Thunderbird 2 beta 2)  

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Open mail composition window
2.Enter 6 or more recipients.  The top two or more recipient lines will have scrolled out of view
3.View window with AccExplorer (easier with highlighting on)
4.
Actual Results:  
The top  two or more recipient lines that have scrolled out of view will report their state as Visible, and their location will be identical to the location of the containing list.

Expected Results:  
These items should report non-visible status and their location should be their actual size and position instead of that of their ancestor.

Comment 1

[ovidiu]

1. Was there a version where you can see it as you want? And not anymore?
2. Is there another list like that that does report as you expect?
3. I use DomInspector extension for UI study. I can tell that reproducing what you say gives me a relative and screen position 
-with x/y screen x/y numbers for visible ones and 
-with x=0,y=0 for all those not visible
How does the AccExplorer interpret that I don't know. 

+ What is it that you are trying to use it for? DomI or mailtweak css extensions may just be enough to determine the structure and properties.

Finally, I just wonder if it's immediately a TB issue and if one cannot live with it. Meaning I would say it works for me.(or wontfix?)

Comment 2

[ovidiu]

As discussed on bugday, this may be related to some older discuss (or core?)
Any opinion on this, Karsten? 

Comment 3

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

Is this still seen in version 3.1?

Comment 4

[Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer]]

RESOLVED INCOMPLETE due to lack of response to previous question. If you feel this change was made in error, please respond to this bug with your reasons why.