539342 - "ASSERTION: Scrolled rect smaller than scrollport?" with table

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Jesse Ruderman]

Attachment: testcase

###!!! ASSERTION: Scrolled rect smaller than scrollport?: 'result.width >= mScrollPort.width', file layout/generic/nsGfxScrollFrame.cpp, line 3061

###!!! ASSERTION: No integers in range; 0 is supposed to be in range: 'low <= high', file layout/generic/nsGfxScrollFrame.cpp, line 1722

I suspect this is a regression from bug 526394, "Move scrolling out of the view system into layout".

Comment 1

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

This happens because of scrollable rowgroups. The tbody frame and scrollframe are sized to 294x0, and the scrollframe also sets the tbody frame's overflow area to the same size. Then later in nsTableRowGroupFrame::CollapseRowGroupIfNecessary, the tbody frame's size and overflow area are both set to 0x0. Then we get these asserts because the overflow area of the tbody frame is smaller than the scrollport.

I'm not too sure how to fix this. Table collapsing just isn't designed to work with scrollable rowgroups.

Comment 2

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

Attachment: testcase

This testcase shows a scrollable rowgroup failing to work with a collapsed row. No scrollbars are needed, but they're shown anyway because the row collapsing is handled after we've reflowed the scrollframe.

Comment 3

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

Didn't we decide to just rip out scrollable table rowgroups? Please?

Comment 4

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Bernd had a patch.  I reviewed it.  Then the tree was locked down, so it never landed.  See bug 28800.

Bernd, can I just push that change modulo my review comment?

Comment 5

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

If Bernd doesn't reply in a few days, let's take silence as consent!

Comment 6

[Bernd]

No, it fails a reftest. Will probably land over the weekend.

Comment 7

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

Bernd landed bug 28800 (Thanks!!!) Jesse, I presume this bug is fixed now?

Comment 8

[Jesse Ruderman]

Yep, WFM with the testcase in comment 0.