383542 - Odd text selection behavior with new textframe

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Core :: Graphics, defect)

Description

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Now that bug 382105 works for me, I've noticed some new incorrect text selection behavior with the new textframe.

At the top of all bug reports, such as this one, it says "Bugzilla@Mozilla - Bug xxxxxx". Double clicking "xxxxxx" should result in only the "xxxxxx" being selected. Instead, double clicking the bug numbers results in "Bug xxxxxx" being selected instead. However, if it says "Bug xxxxxx processed" instead, double click selection seems to work as expected.

Comment 1

[Justin Kerk]

I'm using a normal nightly and double clicking the bug number results in "Bug xxxxxx" being selected....

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a6pre) Gecko/20070612 Minefield/3.0a6pre ID:2007061206

Comment 2

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

Attachment: fix

With the new textframe, we always use nsIWordBreaker so we have to fix this in nsSampleWordBreaker in intl/. (There was probably a bug before where an NBSP in Unicode text was treated as part of a word.)

Comment 3

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Comment on attachment 268142 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

r=me, but I'm not a super-reviewer

Comment 4

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

Do we use super-review in intl/ these days?

Comment 5

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Currently we use super-review except for NPOTDB or updates to properties files with no code changes.

If my say-so as module owner is enough to set policy, I would say we need EITHER r+sr or r+moa; in other words the module owners (currently me and Jungshik) have the power to decide ad hoc what changes need sr. Brendan, is this acceptable?

Comment 6

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

(In reply to comment #5)
> Currently we use super-review except for NPOTDB or updates to properties files
> with no code changes.
> 
> If my say-so as module owner is enough to set policy, I would say we need
> EITHER r+sr or r+moa; in other words the module owners (currently me and
> Jungshik) have the power to decide ad hoc what changes need sr. Brendan, is
> this acceptable?

Sure.

/be

Comment 7

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

Comment on attachment 268142 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

r+moa=smontagu. Go ahead and check in.

Comment 8

[Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (email my personal email if necessary)]

checked in