Closed
Bug 380825
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
Font sizes on Tinderbox are too large
Categories
(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect)
Core
CSS Parsing and Computation
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: RyanVM, Assigned: dbaron)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(3 files, 2 obsolete files)
278 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.06 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.10 KB,
patch
|
RyanVM
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
With the new textframe enabled, the fonts in the main Tinderbox table (showing the build stats) are larger than they are without the new textframe.
Flags: blocking1.9?
Reporter | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Summary: Font sizes on Tinderbox are too large → Font sizes on Tinderbox are too large with new textframe
![]() |
||
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
I'm actually seeing the same thing with regular Mac nightly builds. That changed between 2007051504 (larger text size) and 2007051404 Something with text wrapped inside <tt>, in quirksmode only. Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.9a5pre) Gecko/20070515 Minefield/3.0a5pre ID:2007051504 [cairo] Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.9a5pre) Gecko/20070514 Minefield/3.0a5pre ID:2007051404 [cairo]
![]() |
||
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
the text in the second cell is wrapped in a <tt>
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
You're right, my timing for switching to the new textframe again was just really bad. It does indeed happen on the regular trunk too. Switching components to the proper ones.
Component: GFX: Thebes → Server Operations: Tinderbox Maintenance
Flags: blocking1.9?
Product: Core → mozilla.org
Version: Trunk → other
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
Hopefully this is set properly now
Assignee: nobody → server-ops
OS: Windows XP → All
QA Contact: thebes → justin
Hardware: PC → All
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
Hopefully this is set properly now
Summary: Font sizes on Tinderbox are too large with new textframe → Font sizes on Tinderbox are too large
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
Tinderbox Maintenance is for tinderbox clients that fall over, while this is an issue with the tinderbox server. You could maybe argue this should be in Webtools::Tinderbox.
Component: Server Operations: Tinderbox Maintenance → Server Operations
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
How is this an issue with the Tinderbox server? Please explain.
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
I made the assumption that Gecko became more conformant to standards to cause this, but that's premature. Apologies. Could someone figure out the regression window using http://hourly-archive.localgho.st/
![]() |
||
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
I doubt this has anything to do with the TinderBox server(s). The attached test case shows the problem on my side.
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•17 years ago
|
||
Yes guys, I was being a retard. I'm finding the regression range now and I'll fix things accordingly.
Component: Server Operations → Server Operations: Tinderbox Maintenance
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•17 years ago
|
||
Yes guys, I was being a retard. I'm finding the regression range now and I'll fix things accordingly.
Comment 12•17 years ago
|
||
Per comments 9-11, This is not server ops.
Assignee: server-ops → nobody
Component: Server Operations: Tinderbox Maintenance → General
Product: mozilla.org → Firefox
QA Contact: justin → general
Version: other → Trunk
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•17 years ago
|
||
OK, the regression window is: http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?module=PhoenixTinderbox&date=explicit&mindate=1179203220&maxdate=1179207239 dbaron, I'm guessing your checking for bug 377521 is the culprit? Sorry for all the spam, guys.
Component: General → Style System (CSS)
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → style-system
Reporter | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9?
Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9+
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•17 years ago
|
||
So I'm puzzled as to why anything would be setting eCSSUnit_Initial values...
![]() |
||
Comment 16•17 years ago
|
||
Something in the generic font code, perhaps?
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•17 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → dbaron
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #265037 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #265037 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
![]() |
||
Comment 18•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 265037 [details] [diff] [review] patch Right. Fun...
Attachment #265037 -
Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #265037 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #265037 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #265037 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•17 years ago
|
||
Checked in to trunk. I never did figure out why we were getting eCSSUnit_Initial, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes away after bug 380915.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 20•17 years ago
|
||
Anyone have a suggestion for a reftest for this? I was trying to make one with a table like in philippe's testcase and just a lone <tt>Hello World</tt>, but the indentation (from the left of the page) differs for a table.
Flags: in-testsuite?
Reporter | ||
Comment 21•17 years ago
|
||
I was thinking about making one using <pre> for the reference and <tt> for the test, but I haven't actually attempted it to see if there's visual parity.
Reporter | ||
Comment 22•17 years ago
|
||
My idea is comment #21 doesn't work. <pre> has the same issues <tt> has, not to mention that with <pre>, a newline apparently is inserted after the text even though I didn't ask for one.
Reporter | ||
Comment 24•17 years ago
|
||
I guess <tt> could have been used instead of <pre> for the reference, but I doubt it really matters either way. dbaron, what's your take?
Assignee | ||
Comment 25•17 years ago
|
||
I don't see how this tests the bug, which is related to crossing the monospace and non-monospace font size preferences. I'd think to test that you'd want to use a mochitest, and actually set (and then reset) the preferences during the test.
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•17 years ago
|
||
I don't understand. The reference renders the same both before and after this bug regressed and after the fix landed. The test renders the same before the regression and after the fix, but not while it was regressed. In other words, it fails during the regression range and passes now that the bug is fixed. Isn't that the point of a reftest? I understand that a mochitest may be useful, but it seems to me that the reftest is still testing the specific regression pointed out in this bug.
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•17 years ago
|
||
Not sure why they'd render differently even with the bug, but ok.
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•17 years ago
|
||
Ah, right, the initial came from quirks.css, which has table { font-size: -moz-initial; }
Reporter | ||
Comment 29•17 years ago
|
||
Do you want me to submit a patch with the reference case using <tt> instead of <pre>? I know it shouldn't really matter, but I'm thinking it would be more consistent.
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #265089 -
Flags: review? → review?(dbaron)
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 265089 [details] [diff] [review] Reftest OK, if you add margin:0 to both table and pre, r=dbaron.
Attachment #265089 -
Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
Reporter | ||
Comment 31•16 years ago
|
||
Same as the last reftest, but including a style="margin: 0" on the <table> and <pre> elements. Carrying over previous r+.
Attachment #265089 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #304667 -
Flags: review+
Reporter | ||
Comment 32•16 years ago
|
||
Forgot to mention, reftest.list will need to be updated as well at the time of checkin.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Reporter | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Reporter | ||
Comment 33•16 years ago
|
||
Stupid DOS line endings...
Attachment #304667 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #304668 -
Flags: review+
Comment 34•16 years ago
|
||
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/layout/reftests/bugs/380825-1-ref.html,v done Checking in layout/reftests/bugs/380825-1-ref.html; /cvsroot/mozilla/layout/reftests/bugs/380825-1-ref.html,v <-- 380825-1-ref.html initial revision: 1.1 done RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/layout/reftests/bugs/380825-1.html,v done Checking in layout/reftests/bugs/380825-1.html; /cvsroot/mozilla/layout/reftests/bugs/380825-1.html,v <-- 380825-1.html initial revision: 1.1 done Checking in layout/reftests/bugs/reftest.list; /cvsroot/mozilla/layout/reftests/bugs/reftest.list,v <-- reftest.list new revision: 1.360; previous revision: 1.359 done
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
Keywords: checkin-needed
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•