And make nsIFrame its only caller, modulo a safety assertion.
The safety assertion will be removed at the same time as the pres context
member, since the only purpose of it is to ensure we don't keep a pres context
reference for too long.
MozReview-Commit-ID: CD5zOHVO9ub
Mostly removing some unneeded tags (<meta name=flags> is no longer needed, and
tagging it "dom" didn't seem appropriate to me). Also adding some tags that
match the WPT test template (charset / titles mostly). Also using consistent
indentation.
Finally, adding the needed
<link rel="match">
tags so that the exported tests work correctly upstream.
MozReview-Commit-ID: Lt83JmJE4pO
Much in the spirit of bug 1442207.
They're not only unneeded, and cheap to get, but also we call them
inconsistently with the light DOM and flattened tree parent (like ContentRemoved
for display: contents), so they're really confusing, and kind of a footgun.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9u3Kp8Kpp5i
The code was trying to assert that we had frames constructed for all the nodes
in the parent chain, but we don't bail out in the
!GetContentInsertionFrameFor(aContainer) in the case that it's a children
element, because they actually have no insertion frame, though their children
do.
Move the LazyFC check after the insertion point check. That makes the previous
check work on the insertion point of the child, which makes it sound.
This also fixes bug 1410020, and with it a Shadow DOM test-case that was failing
because we had two sibling assigned to two different <slot>s, and the second one
wasn't getting properly flagged, and thus the second sibling never got a frame.
The other two test failures in this test are an event dispatch failure, where
the position of the target is not what the test expects (we don't account for
margin and padding). Filed that as bug 1450027.
Also, added a test for which we have wrong layout without these patches, and
that crashes with "Called Servo_Element_IsDisplayNone" with the first patch of
this bug applied but not this one, due to the bogus check mentioned above.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 6OeaVrZhTDv
This is mostly code removal, changing GetDisplayContentsStyle(..) checks by an
FFI call to Servo.
The tricky parts are:
* MaybeCreateLazily, which I fixed to avoid setting bits under display: none
stuff. This was a pre-existing problem, which was wallpapered by the
sc->IsInDisplayNoneSubtree() check, which effectively made the whole
assertion useless (see bug 1381017 for the only crashtest that hit this
though).
* ContentRemoved, where we can no longer know for sure whether the element is
actually display: contents if we're removing it as a response to a style
change. See the comment there. That kinda sucks, but that case is relatively
weird, and it's better than adding tons of complexity to handle that.
* GetParentComputedStyle, which also has a comment there. Also, this function
has only one caller now, so we should maybe try to remove it.
The different assertions after DestroyFramesForAndRestyle are changed for a
single assertion in the function itself, and the node bit used as an
optimization to avoid hashtable lookups is taken back.
MozReview-Commit-ID: AZm822QnhF9
Tag is unused.
This changes how some mixes of MathML and html get wrapped in anonymous table
boxes (in particular, it changes whether it uses a MathML or an HTML table
frame). The main thing this affects is whether the frame responds to certain
attributes. Responding to mathml attributes on its mContent when that mContent
is not a MathML element is weird. So arguably this is also more correct.
However, that seems acceptable to me, and you can already get that mixing
manually. On a few (arguably simple) manual test-cases mixing MathML and HTML
tables I couldn't manage to get the patched build to render differently.
Plus, neither our reftests nor the WPT MathML test-suite upstreamed by Fred Wang
for WebKit rely on this.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8IV3iF5xIs0
This covers all the reftests that have lower fuzz (or zero fuzz) and
were producing an UNEXPECTED-PASS result with webrender on windows. In
many cases I just adjusted the lower bound of the existing webrender
fuzz. In other cases existing fails-if conditions had to be tweaked to
exclude webrender.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 49LvS0vuYWR
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : d194e24affb87fe4560a127ff4016f9c38f414fd
Many of these could probably be fuzzed but in the interests of getting
the reftest suite turned on sooner I'm doing a blanket fails-if. This
covers all the reftests where there is more fuzz with webrender on
windows than any of existing annotations account for. In some cases the
fuzz is only a few pixels more than the equivalent Linux fuzz already
annotated, but I'll clean that up in a future bug.
MozReview-Commit-ID: IaKarbnL46d
--HG--
extra : rebase_source : 71889340305b0b12fa8eace722e42bb3faf14419
This test started failing after a reftest rebucketing. It's likely a
particularly-bad special case of known win7 intermittent bug 1392106. For now,
let's mark it as random on Win7 and continue investigating the general issue in
bug 1392106.
MozReview-Commit-ID: KX707Y9ycIC
