Clearance only applies to block-level boxes, so it was unnecessary to
require it as a parameter. Instead, in block layout we can set it using
the new `.with_clearance()` method.
Testing: Unnecessary (no behavior change)
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
It was very easy to forget about using `.with_specific_layout_info()` to
set the specific layout info, so it's better to make it a parameter.
In fact this already happened in the past: #36993 fixed the missing
specific layout info for flex items.
This patch fixes it for floats and atomic inlines. It also propagates it
in other cases where not doing so was not a big deal because the
specific layout info was None, but that was a fragile assumption.
Testing: Various WPT improvements
Fixes: #37898
Signed-off-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
In layout, some parts of the code were still using parallel iterators
from Rayon even when single-thread layout was activated. This change
modifies those parts to use non-parallel iterators when
`LayoutContext::use_rayon` is not active.
Testing: It's very hard to make an automated test for this, but I've
manually
verified this by building with tracing and observing that layout runs
only on
a single thread now when loading https://servo.org.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
This change adds the simplest kind of incremental layout. When Servo
detects that all style changes only require a repaint, only run stacking
context tree and WebRender display list generation. This means that
these kind of restyles do not need a re-layout. Instead, the existing
box and fragment trees will be used and the styles of damaged nodes will
be updated in their box and fragment tree nodes.
This requires a new style repair DOM traversal for nodes that have had
their style damaged. In addition, careful accounting of all the places
where we store style must happen in order ot update those styles.
Testing: This is covered by existing WPT tests as it should not change
observable behavior.
We have created a test case which shows a 50% speedup when run
in Servo, even though there still a long way to go to match the speed
of other browsers:
https://gist.github.com/mrobinson/44ec87d028c0198917a7715a06dd98a0
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Table cells share background styles with their track and track group
boxes. When a track and track group style is repaired, this new data
structure will allow reparing the style of the cell `Fragment`s without
having to lay the table out again or walk through `Fragment`s and
individually repair their background styles.
Testing: This doesn't change behavior and is thus tested by existing
WPT tests.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@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>
This change switches `offsetParent`, `offsetLeft`, etc queries to use
the BoxTree fragments instead of walking the entire fragment tree. In
addition, fragments are stored for columns and colgroups. In general,
this greatly simplifies the flow of the query and prevents having to do
expensive tree walks.
Testing: This change is covered by newly passing WPT tests and three new
failures:
- /css/filter-effects/backdrop-filter-edge-clipping-2.html
- /css/filter-effects/backdrop-filter-edge-mirror.html
- /css/filter-effects/backdrop-filter-edge-pixels-2.html
These failures are actually progressions, because now the references
start
to render properly whereas before they did not.
Fixes: This is part of #36525 and #36665.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@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/table/layout.rs (Browse further)
