`min_content_main_size_for_multiline_container` was initialized to an
outer size, but then it could be clamped by inner sizes.
This patch ensures that it's clamped by outer sizes, and refactors
`FlexItemBoxInlineContentSizesInfo`.
Testing: Covered by WPT
Fixes: #37008
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Fixes a regression from #36973, which didn't take into account that
stretching flex items affects their final block size when the cross axis
is the block axis.
Testing: Adding new test
Fixes: #37023
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Intrinsic sizing keywords weren't working correctly on the min and max
block sizes of a flex container, because we weren't setting the
`CacheableLayoutResult::content_block_size` to the right value. This
also ensures that `align-content` aligns within the final size of the
container.
Note it's not very clear what to do for single-line containers, they are
being discussed in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12123
Testing: Adding new WPT tests. There are still some failures, but most
subtests would fail without this change.
Fixes: #36981
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Before this patch it wasn't possibly to simultaneously support intrinsic
min/max sizes and content alignment in the block axis. For example,
block containers only support the former, and flex containers only the
latter.
The reason is that the final block size was decided by the parent
formatting context *after* performing layout, while content alignment is
performed *during* layout.
To address the problem, this introduces the struct `LazySize`, which
contains the data to resolve the final size, except for the intrinsic
size. Thus the parent formatting context can first create a `LazySize`,
then pass it to the child layout so that (if necessary) it can compute
the final size once the intrinsic one is known, and after layout the
parent formatting context uses it to actually size the child.
This PR just provides the functionality that will be used by follow-ups,
but at this point no layout is using the `LazySize` provided by the
parent, so there shouldn't be any behavior change yet.
Testing: Unnecessary (no behavior change)
This is part of #36981 and #36982
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
We should propagate specified info for flex items. This will prevent the
loss of it for boxes that have this info (e.g. table or grid).
Testing: Adding new WPT tests
---------
Signed-off-by: stevennovaryo <steven.novaryo@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
`PositioningContext` held two vectors, one inside an `Option`, to
differentiate between the version used for a containing block for all
descendants (including `position: absolute` and `position: fixed`) or
only for `position: absolute` descendants. This distinction was really
hard to reason about and required a lot of bookkeeping about what kind
of `PositioningContext` a layout box's parent expected. In addition, it
led to a lot of mistakes.
This change simplifies things so that `PositioningContext` only holds a
single vector. When it comes time to lay out hoisted absolutely
positioned
fragments, the code then:
- lays out all of them (in the case of a `PositioningContext` for all
descendants), or
- only lays out the `position: absolute` descendants and preserves the
`position: fixed` descendants (in the case the `PositioningContext`
is only for `position: absolute`.), or
- lays out none of them if the `PositioningContext` was created for
box that did not establish a containing block for absolutes.
It's possible that this way of dealing with hoisted absolutes is a bit
less efficient, but, the number of these descendants is typically quite
small, so it should not be significant. In addition, this decreases the
size in memory of all `PositioningContexts` which are created in more
situations as time goes on.
Testing: There is a new WPT test with this change.
Fixes: #36696.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
As per
[w3.org/TR/filter-effects-1#FilterProperty](https://www.w3.org/TR/filter-effects-1/#FilterProperty),
`filter` shouldn't make the root element establish a containing block
for absolute and fixed positioned descendants. `will-change: filter` has
matching behavior.
This PR adds a check for if we are the root element before establishing
such a block.
To know if we are the root element, we look at the `FragmentFlags`
passed in. Previously for our function, these were dummy flags, always
constructed as empty. Thus, this PR also makes sure the correct
FragmentFlags are passed down the chain to the function
`establishes_containing_block_for_all_descendants`.
Testing:
- `/css/filter-effects/filtered-html-is-not-container.html` now passes
- `/css/css-will-change/will-change-fixedpos-cb-003.html` now passes
- Manual tests are working
Fixes: #35391
---------
Signed-off-by: haval0 <56519858+haval0@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Now that legacy layout has been removed, the name `layout_2020` doesn't
make much sense any longer, also it's 2025 now for better or worse. The
split between the "layout thread" and "layout" also doesn't make as much
sense since layout doesn't run on it's own thread. There's a possibility
that it will in the future, but that should be something that the user
of the crate controls rather than layout iself.
This is part of the larger layout interface cleanup and optimization
that
@Looriool and I are doing.
Testing: Covered by existing tests as this is just code movement.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
2025-04-19 10:17:03 +00:00
Renamed from components/layout_2020/flexbox/layout.rs (Browse further)
