layout: Use the value of the `max-width` property when speculating what the inline sizes of block formatting contexts are likely to be.
Usually, Web developers set this property on block formatting contexts
in order to avoid running into floats, and we can use this as a
speculation hint.
Fixes the width of the search box on the Google SERPs.
r? @mbrubeck
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7256)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Avoid a panic when handling collapsing borders (fixes#7144)
There is no need to compute next_collapsed_borders_in_block_direction for all kind of flows when it's used only in the table row case. That also avoids a panic when the next child is a table colgroup (this should not happen when iterating over a table row).
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7243)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
There is no need to compute next_collapsed_borders_in_block_direction for all
kind of flows when it's used only in the table row case. That also avoids a panic
when the next child is a table colgroup (this should not happen when iterating
over a table row).
the inline sizes of block formatting contexts are likely to be.
Usually, Web developers set this property on block formatting contexts
in order to avoid running into floats, and we can use this as a
speculation hint.
Fixes the width of the search box on the Google SERPs.
layout: Improve our handling of inline absolute containing blocks.
Several issues are addressed in this commit:
* Inline flows now bubble up their absolute descendants instead of
making the inline flow the containing block for them. (In the future,
we will need to make the inline flow *sometimes* be the containing
block for them, but for now it improves sites to unconditionally
bubble up.)
* Fragments now look at their inline fragment context to determine
whether they are positioned.
* Inline flows now push the stacking-relative position of the absolute
containing block down to their inline-block fragments.
* Inline absolute hypothetical fragments can be containing blocks.
* Fixes the logic in
`containing_block_range_for_flow_surrounding_fragment_at_index`. The
condition to determine whether fragments are positioned was inverted!
* `Descendants`/`AbsDescendants` has been refactored in order to become
more friendly to inline absolute containing blocks in the future.
Improves the inline position of the green drop-down arrow in the Google
SERPs. (The block position is still wrong.)
r? @mbrubeck
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7177)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Several issues are addressed in this commit:
* Inline flows now bubble up their absolute descendants instead of
making the inline flow the containing block for them. (In the future,
we will need to make the inline flow *sometimes* be the containing
block for them, but for now it improves sites to unconditionally
bubble up.)
* Fragments now look at their inline fragment context to determine
whether they are positioned.
* Inline flows now push the stacking-relative position of the absolute
containing block down to their inline-block fragments.
* Inline absolute hypothetical fragments can be containing blocks.
* Fixes the logic in
`containing_block_range_for_flow_surrounding_fragment_at_index`. The
condition to determine whether fragments are positioned was inverted!
* `Descendants`/`AbsDescendants` has been refactored in order to become
more friendly to inline absolute containing blocks in the future.
Improves the inline position of the green drop-down arrow in the Google
SERPs. (The block position is still wrong.)
into account only once.
There were two bugs here: (1) relative position applied to
scanned/unscanned text fragments independently of the container element
that applied that relative position, causing double-counting; (2)
relative position applied to inline block fragments independently of the
wrapped block itself, causing double-counting.
This commit also removes the `cascade_anonymous` function and the
related `Fragment` constructor. They were unused, and their
functionality has been replaced by the `modify_style_for_*` series of
functions.
Closes#7067.
Implementing document.hasFocus method, needs tests. #6475
I'm not sure if I have to implement some test for a new document method. As I remember there were tests for document methods, is it changed now? Where should I add tests?
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6757)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
layout: Rewrite whitespace stripping.
This patch makes Servo unconditionally strip whitespace before text run
scanning (assuming that the `white-space` property allows it). Whitespace
stripping during reflow is now only used for handling whitespace at the ends of
lines; reflow now never attempts to handle ignorable whitespace.
Many CSS tests pass now. There are some new failures, however.
The following reference tests now fail due to a pre-existing bug whereby
whitespace is used to calculate the position of inline hypothetical boxes for
elements with `display: inline; position: absolute`:
* `absolute-replaced-height-036.htm`
* `vertical-align-sub-001.htm`
* `vertical-align-super-001.htm`
The following reference tests fail due to a pre-existing bug whereby we don't
handle `font-size: 0` properly in inline reflow:
* `font-size-zero-1.htm`
* `font-size-zero-2.htm`
The following reference test fails due to the fact that it relied on our
incorrect insertion of whitespace to make room for the black background:
* `inline-formatting-context-007.htm`
r? @mbrubeck
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7024)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This patch makes Servo unconditionally strip whitespace before text run
scanning (assuming that the `white-space` property allows it). Whitespace
stripping during reflow is now only used for handling whitespace at the ends of
lines; reflow now never attempts to handle ignorable whitespace.
Many CSS tests pass now. There are some new failures, however.
The following reference tests now fail due to a pre-existing bug whereby
whitespace is used to calculate the position of inline hypothetical boxes for
elements with `display: inline; position: absolute`:
* `absolute-replaced-height-036.htm`
* `vertical-align-sub-001.htm`
* `vertical-align-super-001.htm`
The following reference tests fail due to a pre-existing bug whereby we don't
handle `font-size: 0` properly in inline reflow:
* `font-size-zero-1.htm`
* `font-size-zero-2.htm`
The following reference test fails due to the fact that it relied on our
incorrect insertion of whitespace to make room for the black background:
* `inline-formatting-context-007.htm`
Snap rectangles to nearest pixels consistently.
Snapping the top-left and bottom-right corners separately can cause a rectangle to change size or even become empty when offset by a subpixel amount. Instead, this patch snaps the top-left corner, then snaps the size to a whole pixel amount, so any rectangle of a given original size will always have the same snapped size.
Fixes#7152. r? @pcwalton or @glennw
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7161)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Snapping the top-left and bottom-right corners separately can cause a
rectangle to change size when offset by a subpixel amount. Instead, this
patch snaps the top-left corner, then rounds the size to a whole pixel amount,
so any rectangle of a given size will always have the same snapped size.
Fixes#7152.
CanvasGradient#addColorStop should throw for invalid colors and offsets
The new test failure is because the color stop has a value of 'currentColor' which we don't support yet.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7104)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
layout: Implement basic `overflow: scroll` functionality.
Known issues:
* Display list optimization can sometimes optimize out elements that
should be shown. This affects the Enyo demo.
* The `overflow: scroll` container doesn't clip the inner layer properly
when borders, border radius, etc. are present.
* `overflow-x: scroll` and `overflow-y: scroll` don't work individually;
elements are scrolled all at once.
Note that multiple layers per stacking context aren't needed for the Enyo demo; rather the issue is that the height of the main area is being calculated incorrectly. (It looks like JS is measuring the height and poking in an explicit value that is too tall.)
r? @glennw
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/7090)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
