gecko-dev/layout/reftests/position-relative/reftest.list

== table-collapse-1.html table-collapse-1-ref.html
== table-collapse-2.html table-collapse-2-ref.html
== table-collapse-3.html table-collapse-3-ref.html
== table-collapse-4.html table-collapse-4-ref.html
== table-separate-1.html table-separate-1-ref.html
== table-separate-2.html table-separate-2-ref.html
== table-separate-3.html table-separate-3-ref.html
== table-separate-4.html table-separate-4-ref.html
== 1115999-1.html 1115999-1-ref.html
Bug 35168 (Part 3) - Add tests for table part relative positioning. r=dbaron 2014-08-20 05:24:58 +04:00			`== table-collapse-1.html table-collapse-1-ref.html`
			`== table-collapse-2.html table-collapse-2-ref.html`
			`== table-collapse-3.html table-collapse-3-ref.html`
			`== table-collapse-4.html table-collapse-4-ref.html`
			`== table-separate-1.html table-separate-1-ref.html`
			`== table-separate-2.html table-separate-2-ref.html`
			`== table-separate-3.html table-separate-3-ref.html`
			`== table-separate-4.html table-separate-4-ref.html`
Bug 1115999 - Call ApplyRelativePositioning properly for some table cells that we choose not to reflow. r=roc I confirmed that the reftest passes with the patch and fails without the patch. This is the crazy codepath where nsTableRowFrame sets doReflowChild to true, and then tests some additional conditions, and based on those conditions decides to do part (but not all) of the work of reflowing the child. This is making relative and sticky positioning work correctly in that case, which we should really just get rid of, but which I don't want to deal with now. --HG-- extra : transplant_source : %B2%BE%A64%F1%5CG%25%BD%0F%BD%3E%94%80%24%86eEWv 2014-12-29 03:42:54 +03:00			`== 1115999-1.html 1115999-1-ref.html`