We calculate the size of ratio-dependent axis by aspect-ratio while
initializing its ReflowInput, for most of the basic block cases.
This patch doesn't include "Automatic content-based minimum sizes",
which will be handled later. Besides, replaced elements will be handled
later as well.
We don't pass abspos-004.tentative.html because there is still a
spec issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5151.
For other tests we didn't pass (e.g. block-aspect-ratio-009.tentative.html,
or replaced-element-00x.tentative.html), we fix them later.
Besides, in this patch, we don't handle the case if the size of
ratio-determining axis uses intrinsic size keywords (which needs to be
calculated by its content size). We will fix this in the following bug
(Bug 1646100).
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D78964
Also, for changes in CSS declarations, like changing
cssRules[i].style.color or something, we end up avoiding a lot of the
work we were doing.
This page still trips us in the sense that they add a stylesheet, then
call getBoundingClientRect(), then insert more rules in the stylesheet,
which causes us to rebuild a lot of the cascade data.
We could try to detect appends to the last stylesheet on the list or
something I guess, and avoid rebuilding the cascade data in some cases.
Depends on D85615
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D85616
This avoids arbitrary precision loss when computing REM units and so on,
which is particularly important if we ever change the base of our app
units (but useful regardless).
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D79928
This avoids arbitrary precision loss when computing REM units and so on,
which is particularly important if we ever change the base of our app
units (but useful regardless).
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D79928
In order to test its parsing and serialization, we expose it but protect
it behind a pref.
Besides, I would like to drop layout.css.aspect-ratio-number.enabled in
the next patch because the spec has been updated. It seems we don't have
to keep this pref and we should always use Number.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D74955
We still panic in a debug build, so that developers can notice when they
need to add a new static atom after modifying UA sheets.
We also add telemetry to note when this happens, add an app note to a
crash report, in case any crash later on occurs, and re-up the existing,
expired shared memory sheet telemetry probes so we can look at them
again.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D73188
- Add new CSS Error
- Add new test case for error
- Ensure that test cases use `replace()` and `replaceSync()`
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D69423
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
Are there any Rust crates outside mozilla-central that include or emit Mozilla C++ code that should be updated to use [[nodiscard]] instead of MOZ_MUST_USE?
Depends on D68751
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D69319
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
This patch computes the author-specified properties during the CSS cascade, and
removes the complex rule-tree-based implementation that tries to do the cascade
again.
This changes behavior in two ways, one of them which is not observable to
content, I believe:
* revert now re-enables the native styling. This was brought up in
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4777 and I think it is a bug-fix.
This is observable to content, and I'm adding a test for it.
* We don't look at inherited styles from our ancestors when `inherit` is
specified in a non-author stylesheet. This was introduced for bug 452969 but
we don't seem to inherit background anymore for file controls or such. It
seems back then file controls used to have a text-field.
I audited forms.css and ua.css and we don't explicitly inherit
padding / border / background-color into any nested form control.
We keep the distinction between border/background and padding, because the later
has some callers. I think we should try to align with Chromium in the long run
and remove the padding bit.
We need to give an appearance to the range-thumb and such so that we can assert
that we don't call HasAuthorSpecifiedRules on non-themed stuff. I used a new
internal value for that.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D67722
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
This patch computes the author-specified properties during the CSS cascade, and
removes the complex rule-tree-based implementation that tries to do the cascade
again.
This changes behavior in two ways, one of them which is not observable to
content, I believe:
* revert now re-enables the native styling. This was brought up in
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4777 and I think it is a bug-fix.
This is observable to content, and I'm adding a test for it.
* We don't look at inherited styles from our ancestors when `inherit` is
specified in a non-author stylesheet. This was introduced for bug 452969 but
we don't seem to inherit background anymore for file controls or such. It
seems back then file controls used to have a text-field.
I audited forms.css and ua.css and we don't explicitly inherit
padding / border / background-color into any nested form control.
We keep the distinction between border/background and padding, because the later
has some callers. I think we should try to align with Chromium in the long run
and remove the padding bit.
We need to give an appearance to the range-thumb and such so that we can assert
that we don't call HasAuthorSpecifiedRules on non-themed stuff. I used a new
internal value for that.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D67722
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
