These changes are needed for consistently green runs with the new emulator with
"-gpu on".
Most changes are simple removal of fuzzy-if(geckoview) but I also needed to add
at least one new fuzzy-if.
In this configuration we can run reftests in just 2 chunks (20 minutes each on
opt/30 minutes on debug).
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D36258
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
There are a number of failures, for which I've filed separate bugs.
And then a lot of fuzziness. I manually inspected the reftest analyzer
results on try pushes to distinguish failures vs fuzziness.
Depends on D34537
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D34538
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
Technically Bug 1524774 only has 1 fuzzy pixel, but I'm aiming to also address
bug 1525568 which has 2 fuzzy pixels on a different platform (mac).
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 1be608959d17bfa0de555820f1270a9ca6759163
It was enabled by default in bug 1041833 (for desktops) and
bug 1087562 (for Fennect).
Depends on D15706
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D15707
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
add fuzzy-if statements to allow reftests to run on new windows10 AMI image
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D12553
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
This patch was written entirely by the following script:
#!/bin/bash
if [ ! -d "./.hg" ]
then
echo "Not in a source tree." 1>&2
exit 1
fi
find . -regex '.*\(ref\|crash\)test.*\.list' | while read FILENAME
do
echo "Processing ${FILENAME}."
# The following has four substitutions:
# * The first one replaces the *first* argument to fuzzy() when it doesn't
# have a - in it, by replacing it with an explicit 0-N range.
# * The second one does the same for the *second* argument to fuzzy().
# * The third does the same for the *second* argument to fuzzy-if().
# * The fourth does the same for the *third* argument to fuzzy-if().
#
# Note that this is using perl rather than sed because perl doesn't
# support non-greedy matching, which is needed for the first argument to
# fuzzy-if.
perl -pi -e 's/(fuzzy\()([^ ,()-]*)(,[^ ,()]*\))/${1}0-${2}${3}/g;s/(fuzzy\([^ ,()]*,)([^ ,()-]*)(\))/${1}0-${2}${3}/g;s/(fuzzy-if\([^ ]*?,)([^ ,()-]*)(,[^ ,()]*\))/${1}0-${2}${3}/g;s/(fuzzy-if\([^ ]*?,[^ ,()]*,)([^ ,()-]*)(\))/${1}0-${2}${3}/g' "${FILENAME}"
done
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D2974
--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
This patch:
- adds fails-if annotations for all the reftests that were consistently failing
with layers-free turned on.
- removes fails-if or reduces the range on fuzzy-if annotations for all
the reftests that were producing UNEXPECTED-PASS results with
layers-free turned on.
- adds skip-if, random-if, or fuzzy-if annotations to the reftests that
were intermittently failing due to timeout, obvious incorrectness, or
slight pixel differences, respectively.
MozReview-Commit-ID: A0Aknn6rnjj
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 420d9cf43f23a5d654fa36eec69138937d13c173
This fixes an incremental layout bug, where the number of times we
reflow the frame affects its layout. This is because we make the
decisions about the vertical scrollbar before the horizontal scrollbar
(and, when making the decision, adjust mHelper.mScrollPort for the size
of the scrollbar). Thus, in order to avoid a situation where reflowing
the scrollframe once leads us to have no vertical scrollbar, but
reflowing it a second time leads us to add that scrollbar, we need to
retest for the need for a vertical scrollbar after we add the horizontal
one.
(It's possible there are some other missing cases here, but this is the
one that (a) already existed in the code and (b) is needed to fix the
reftest failure on Windows that I got on bug 1308876, in
layout/reftests/text-overflow/xulscroll.html .
The reftest here shows the bug even without bug 1308876 (though I
confirmed that only by loading the test and reference in a nightly
build, not in the reftest harness). I did test that, in combination
with bug 1308876, the test fails without the patch and passes with the
patch.
MozReview-Commit-ID: LhMi7LbmB6J
Disable 461917-1.xhtml under dom/xul/crashtests/ because I cannot reproduce
it locally.
Annotate assert-if on some crashtests (bug 1370830). Other modifications are
all removal of fails-if.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 6Q2A5M5rOry
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : b282a919fcda6287fe2eaa6b139a11f2663ad578
We want the maximum scroll position to be aligned with layer pixels. That way
we don't have to re-rasterize the scrolled contents once scrolling hits the
edge of the scrollable area.
Here's how we determine the maximum scroll position: We get the scroll port
rect, snapped to layer pixels. Then we get the scrolled rect and also snap
that to layer pixels. The maximum scroll position is set to the difference
between right/bottom edges of these rectangles.
Now the scrollable area is computed by adding this maximum scroll position
to the unsnapped scroll port size.
The underlying idea here is: Pretend we have overflow:visible so that the
scrolled contents start at (0, 0) relative to the scroll port and spill over
the scroll port edges. When these contents are rendered, their rendering is
snapped to layer pixels. We want those exact pixels to be accessible by
scrolling.
This way of computing the snapped scrollable area ensures that, if you scroll
to the maximum scroll position, the right/bottom edges of the rendered
scrolled contents line up exactly with the right/bottom edges of the scroll
port. The scrolled contents are neither cut off nor are they moved too far.
(This is something that no other browser engine gets completely right, see the
testcase in bug 1012752.)
There are also a few disadvantages to this solution. We snap to layer pixels,
and the size of a layer pixel can depend on the zoom level, the document
resolution, the current screen's scale factor, and CSS transforms. The snap
origin is the position of the reference frame. So a change to any of these
things can influence the scrollable area and the maximum scroll position.
This patch does not make us adjust the current scroll position in the event
that the maximum scroll position changes such that the current scroll position
would be out of range, unless there's a reflow of the scrolled contents. This
means that we can sometimes render a slightly inconsistent state where the
current scroll position exceeds the maximum scroll position. We can fix this
once it turns out to be a problem; I doubt that it will be a problem because
none of the other browsers seems to prevent this problem either.
The size of the scrollable area is exposed through the DOM properties
scrollWidth and scrollHeight. At the moment, these are integer properties, so
their value is rounded to the nearest CSS pixel. Before this patch, the
returned value would always be within 0.5 CSS pixels of the value that layout
computed for the content's scrollable overflow based on the CSS styles of the
contents.
Now that scrollWidth and scrollHeight also depend on pixel snapping, their
values can deviate by up to one layer pixel from what the page might expect
based on the styles of the contents. This change requires a few changes to
existing tests.
The fact that scrollWidth and scrollHeight can change based on the position of
the scrollable element and the zoom level / resolution may surprise some web
pages. However, this also seems to happen in Edge. Edge seems to always round
scrollWidth and scrollHeight upwards, possibly to their equivalent of layout
device pixels.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 3LFV7Lio4tG
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 3e4e0b60493397e61283aa1d7fd93d7c197dec29
extra : source : d43c2d5e87f31ff47d7f3ada66c3f5f27cef84a9
We want the maximum scroll position to be aligned with layer pixels. That way
we don't have to re-rasterize the scrolled contents once scrolling hits the
edge of the scrollable area.
Here's how we determine the maximum scroll position: We get the scroll port
rect, snapped to layer pixels. Then we get the scrolled rect and also snap
that to layer pixels. The maximum scroll position is set to the difference
between right/bottom edges of these rectangles.
Now the scrollable area is computed by adding this maximum scroll position
to the unsnapped scroll port size.
The underlying idea here is: Pretend we have overflow:visible so that the
scrolled contents start at (0, 0) relative to the scroll port and spill over
the scroll port edges. When these contents are rendered, their rendering is
snapped to layer pixels. We want those exact pixels to be accessible by
scrolling.
This way of computing the snapped scrollable area ensures that, if you scroll
to the maximum scroll position, the right/bottom edges of the rendered
scrolled contents line up exactly with the right/bottom edges of the scroll
port. The scrolled contents are neither cut off nor are they moved too far.
(This is something that no other browser engine gets completely right, see the
testcase in bug 1012752.)
There are also a few disadvantages to this solution. We snap to layer pixels,
and the size of a layer pixel can depend on the zoom level, the document
resolution, the current screen's scale factor, and CSS transforms. The snap
origin is the position of the reference frame. So a change to any of these
things can influence the scrollable area and the maximum scroll position.
This patch does not make us adjust the current scroll position in the event
that the maximum scroll position changes such that the current scroll position
would be out of range, unless there's a reflow of the scrolled contents. This
means that we can sometimes render a slightly inconsistent state where the
current scroll position exceeds the maximum scroll position. We can fix this
once it turns out to be a problem; I doubt that it will be a problem because
none of the other browsers seems to prevent this problem either.
The size of the scrollable area is exposed through the DOM properties
scrollWidth and scrollHeight. At the moment, these are integer properties, so
their value is rounded to the nearest CSS pixel. Before this patch, the
returned value would always be within 0.5 CSS pixels of the value that layout
computed for the content's scrollable overflow based on the CSS styles of the
contents.
Now that scrollWidth and scrollHeight also depend on pixel snapping, their
values can deviate by up to one layer pixel from what the page might expect
based on the styles of the contents. This change requires a few changes to
existing tests.
The fact that scrollWidth and scrollHeight can change based on the position of
the scrollable element and the zoom level / resolution may surprise some web
pages. However, this also seems to happen in Edge. Edge seems to always round
scrollWidth and scrollHeight upwards, possibly to their equivalent of layout
device pixels.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 3LFV7Lio4tG
--HG--
extra : histedit_source : 5390eeebfe9a2791d9ac8e91ec1dfec4ec7b4118
