Closed
Bug 619968
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
feGaussianBlur with a zero std deviation in either direction should not cause rendering to fail
Categories
(Core :: SVG, defect)
Core
SVG
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: heycam, Assigned: longsonr)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
1.89 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
If an <feGaussianBlur> has stdDeviation="0" or stdDeviation="1 0" or stdDeviation="0 1", then the filter output should simply not blur the directions with 0 std deviation, rather than producing no output. This causes the above URL to fail as well as http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlObjectMiniApproved/filters-gauss-03-f.html.
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → longsonr
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #498495 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #498495 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
heycam, for future reference, can you assign me to bugs you file that you know I (or someone else) has a patch for to avoid a third person duplicating work? In this case it doesn't really matter much since the patch is trivial, but something to keep in mind.
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 498495 [details] [diff] [review] patch longsonr, can you also remove the special case code at the callee?
Attachment #498495 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review?(jwatt)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #498495 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #498507 -
Flags: review?(jwatt)
Attachment #498507 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #498495 -
Flags: review?(jwatt)
Attachment #498495 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 498507 [details]
patch
r=jwatt
Can you also change the test to this though (assuming it passes!):
<defs>
<filter id="identity" filterUnits="objectBoundingBox">
<feGaussianBlur stdDeviation="0"/>
<feOffset dx="-5" dy="-5"/>
</filter>
</defs>
<rect width="100%" height="100%" fill="lime"/>
<rect x="5" y="5" width="50" height="50" fill="red" stroke="red" stroke-width="2"/>
<rect x="10" y="10" width="50" height="50" fill="lime" stroke="lime" stroke-width="2" filter="url(#identity)"/>
The idea of the feOffset is to make sure the test only passes if filters are supported, and the idea behind putting the rects further up in the top left corner is to make sure the red is onscreen even on the tiniest of screens (not really relevant to how we test, but it is as we try and get other implementations to use our tests).
Attachment #498507 -
Flags: review?(jwatt) → review+
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Oh, and I removed the x/y/width/height attributes on the <filter> since they shouldn't be necessary with the rects the size they are in comment 5.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5) > Can you also change the test to this though (assuming it passes!): > It doesn't pass.
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #498507 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #498511 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #498507 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
I discovered there's already a reftest that checks it doesn't render so I adjusted that to check that it does.
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7) > It doesn't pass. That seems to be because we're not calculating the filter primitive subregion correctly. Looking into that now.
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > heycam, for future reference, can you assign me to bugs you file that you know > I (or someone else) has a patch for to avoid a third person duplicating work? > In this case it doesn't really matter much since the patch is trivial, but > something to keep in mind. Ouch, sorry about that. I should've remembered that you'd started looking at it.
Attachment #498511 -
Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [needs landing]
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
I actually showed you it working, although given the number of tests we went through you could be forgiven for forgetting! ;) Anyway, no worries, it was a small patch. :) Pushed http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/01cb674212d4
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [needs landing]
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•14 years ago
|
||
Not sure what you mean, the comment 5 testcase shows a red border on Windows.
Assignee | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Flags: in-testsuite+
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•