Closed
Bug 691194
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Move filter element attribute processing to the frame class
Categories
(Core :: SVG, defect)
Core
SVG
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla10
People
(Reporter: longsonr, Assigned: longsonr)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
5.18 KB,
patch
|
dholbert
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #564080 -
Attachment is patch: true
Attachment #564080 -
Flags: review?(dholbert)
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → longsonr
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 564080 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
This patch seems mostly straightforwardly behavior-preserving, except for this part:
>+nsSVGFilterFrame::AttributeChanged(PRInt32 aNameSpaceID,
>+ nsIAtom* aAttribute,
>+ PRInt32 aModType)
>+{
>+ } else if (aNameSpaceID == kNameSpaceID_XLink &&
>+ aAttribute == nsGkAtoms::href) {
>+ // Blow away our reference, if any
>+ Properties().Delete(nsSVGEffects::HrefProperty());
This property-delete doesn't seem to be something we were doing before. A quick grep for nsSVGEffects::HrefProperty has hits in 3 files, with 3 hits per file, all following the same pattern (each file has 1 hit each for Delete(), Get(), and GetXXXProperty()).
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=nsSVGEffects%3A%3AHrefProperty
None of those hits are in nsSVGFilterFrame, or any of its parent / related classes AFAICT. So, I don't immediately see how it'd get set for a nsSVGFilterFrame (and need deleting). Maybe I'm missing something, though?
So, perhaps we don't need this line? (Or, if we do, could you add a regression test for it?)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #1)
> None of those hits are in nsSVGFilterFrame, or any of its parent / related
> classes AFAICT. So, I don't immediately see how it'd get set for a
> nsSVGFilterFrame (and need deleting). Maybe I'm missing something, though?
No, it's just wrong, a remnant of the copy paste from the gradientFrame code I used to create this.
>
> So, perhaps we don't need this line? (Or, if we do, could you add a
> regression test for it?)
I'll remove it.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #564080 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #564080 -
Flags: review?(dholbert)
Attachment #564472 -
Flags: review?(dholbert)
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #564472 -
Flags: review?(dholbert) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla10
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•