1282076-1.html is a test case with a CSS animation.
1282076-2.html is a test case with a scripit animation.
Both of tests crashed before landing the fix for bug 1282076.
Although neither test does not crash currently any more with/without the fix,
it's worth adding them.
Without this patch test cases 1290995-{1,2,3}.html causes an assertion.
1290995-4.html is hit by the assertion in this patch if we don't avoid the
multiplication.
MozReview-Commit-ID: AtPVyPtd0r8
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 43dbbbb98eb95faa15774b206a5776f43b1ea072
This patch was generated by the command:
find * -type f -exec sed -i -f ../mozpropsub {} \;
in the root of the repository, with the file ../mozpropsub containing:
s/-moz-padding-end\>/padding-inline-end/g
s/-moz-padding-start\>/padding-inline-start/g
s/-moz-margin-end\>/margin-inline-end/g
s/-moz-margin-start\>/margin-inline-start/g
s/-moz-border-end\>/border-inline-end/g
s/-moz-border-end-color\>/border-inline-end-color/g
s/-moz-border-end-style\>/border-inline-end-style/g
s/-moz-border-end-width\>/border-inline-end-width/g
s/-moz-border-start\>/border-inline-start/g
s/-moz-border-start-color\>/border-inline-start-color/g
s/-moz-border-start-style\>/border-inline-start-style/g
s/-moz-border-start-width\>/border-inline-start-width/g
s/\<MozPaddingEnd\>/paddingInlineEnd/g
s/\<MozPaddingStart\>/paddingInlineStart/g
s/\<MozMarginEnd\>/marginInlineEnd/g
s/\<MozMarginStart\>/marginInlineStart/g
s/\<MozBorderEnd\>/borderInlineEnd/g
s/\<MozBorderEndColor\>/borderInlineEndColor/g
s/\<MozBorderEndStyle\>/borderInlineEndStyle/g
s/\<MozBorderEndWidth\>/borderInlineEndWidth/g
s/\<MozBorderStart\>/borderInlineStart/g
s/\<MozBorderStartColor\>/borderInlineStartColor/g
s/\<MozBorderStartStyle\>/borderInlineStartStyle/g
s/\<MozBorderStartWidth\>/borderInlineStartWidth/g
The diffs for the following files:
layout/style/nsCSSPropAliasList.h
layout/style/test/property_database.js
layout/style/test/test_value_computation.html
were then manually removed from the patch.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8fbYnlZcn9U
I have verified that without the fix in the first patch in this series this
test fails, but passes with the fix applied.
MozReview-Commit-ID: JmncnapbVLa
I confirmed locally that this patch does fix the assertion in the
crashtest.
MozReview-Commit-ID: L1TIAZZ1aNu
--HG--
extra : transplant_source : %FE_N%7D%AE%11%0D%92B%93%F6%3D%CFyY%3D5%7EFt
I confirmed locally that, without the following patch, the crashtest
harness does detect the single assertion.
MozReview-Commit-ID: FRkCdxSSa7V
--HG--
extra : transplant_source : xF%BC%7E%03%B3%1Bp%EF%07%D9%28%F6C%B5s%C7%C2%15%C1
The flag SkipParentDisplayBasedStyleFixup is for flex/grid fixup, and it is set
for all pseudo elements other than before/after. This is not desirable for ruby
case.
Moving the code out also means elements will inherit the suppress flag directly
from "display: contents" parent (instead of the container), which is fine since
the parent should have had its flag set properly as well.
--HG--
extra : source : ab8d1c650ec6aa41cb165c278de9e06182a0c733
As well as ensuring that we don't create animations for elements that are not
part of the document tree, this test also adjusts the assertion that checks
this in the following ways:
* Calls GetComposedDoc() instead of GetCrossShadowCurrentDoc() since the
latter is deprecated.
* Moves it from RequestRestyle to FlushAnimations since, depending on how we
refactor this code in the future, it's possible we might end up calling
RequestRestyle even for animations on elements that have been removed from the
document but we shouldn't call FlushAnimations in this case.
Hiroyuki Ikezoe
Cameron McCormack
Xidorn Quan
Thomas Wisniewski
Xidorn Quan
Daniel Holbert
cku
L. David Baron
Brian Birtles
Boris Zbarsky
Jesse Ruderman
Wes Kocher
Mats Palmgren
Carsten "Tomcat" Book
Ryan VanderMeulen
Zack Weinberg
Masatoshi Kimura