Text selection API conformance
This is my next batch of changes for issue #19171. All the tests in tests/wpt/metadata/html/semantics/forms/textfieldselection/ are now passing (and also some tests outside of there).
I've made detailed notes about the changes in each commit message.
r? @KiChjang
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/19544)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Spec: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#input-type-change
In short, this resets the selection to the start of the field when the
type has changed from one which doesn't support the selection API to one
that does.
I couldn't see an existing WPT test covering this.
Spec: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/#dom-textarea/input-setrangetext
In order to do this, we need to define the SelectionMode enum in WebIDL:
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/#selectionmode
Since the enum is used by HTMLTextAreaElement and HTMLInputElement, it
doesn't seem to make sense to define it in the WebIDL file for one or
other of those.
However, we also can't create a stand-alone SelectionMode.webidl file,
because the current binding-generation code won't generate a "pub mod
SelectionMode;" line in mod.rs unless SelectionMode.webidl contains
either an interface or a namespace. (This logic happens in
components/script/dom/bindings/codegen/Configuration.py:35, in the
Configuration.__init__ method.)
I thought about changing the binding-generation code, but that seems
difficult. So I settled for placing the enum inside
HTMLFormElement.webidl, as that seems like a "neutral" location. We
could equally settle for putting it under HTMLTextAreaElement or
HTMLInputElement, it probably doesn't really matter.
The setRangeText algorithm set the "dirty value flag" on the
input/textarea. I made some clean-ups related to this:
1. HTMLTextAreaElement called its dirty value flag "value_changed"; I
changed this to "value_dirty" to be consistent with the spec.
2. HTMLInputElement had a "value_changed" field and also a "value_dirty"
field, which were each used in slightly different places (and
sometimes in both places). I consolidated these into a single
"value_dirty" field, which was necessary in order to make some of the
tests pass.
TextControl::set_dom_range_text replaces part of the existing textinput
content with the replacement string (steps 9-10 of the algorithm). My
implementation changes the textinput's selection and then replaces the
selection. A downside of this approach is that we lose the original
selection state from before the call to setRangeText. Therefore, we have
to save the state into the original_selection_state variable so that we
can later pass it into TextControl::set_selection_range. This allows
TextControl::set_selection_range to correctly decide whether or not to
fire the select event.
An alternative approach would be to implement a method on TextInput
which allows a subtring of the content to be mutated, without touching
the current selection state. However, any such method would potentially
put the TextInput into an inconsistent state where the edit_point and/or
selection_origin is a TextPoint which doesn't exist in the content. It
would be up to the caller to subsequently make sure that the TextInput
gets put back into a valid state (which would actually happen, when
TextControl::set_selection_range is called).
I think TextInput's public API should not make it possible to put it
into an invalid state, as that would be a potential source of bugs.
That's why I didn't take this approach. (TextInput's public API does
currently make it possible to create an invalid state, but I'd like to
submit a follow-up patch to lock this down.)
The implementation of adjust_horizontal_to_limit() is written with UI in
mind. As such, when there's a selection and we "adjust horizontal", the
selection will be cleared and the cursor will and up at the start/end of
the previous selection. This is what happens when you have a selection
and you press an arrow key on your keyboard, but it isn't the behaviour
we want when programmatically changing the value.
Instead, we need to first clear the selection, and then move the cursor
to the end. (We also need to reset the selection direction when clearing
the selection.)
Per the spec, selectionStart and selectionEnd should return the same
values regardless of the selectionDirection. (That is, selectionStart is
always less than or equal to selectionEnd; the direction then implies
which of selectionStart or selectionEnd is the cursor position.)
There was no explicit WPT test for this, so I added one.
This bug was initially quite hard to wrap my head around, and I think
part of the problem is the code in TextInput. Therefore, in the process
of fixing it I have refactored the implementation of TextInput:
* Rename selection_begin to selection_origin. This value doesn't
necessarily correspond directly to the selectionStart DOM value - in
the case of a backward selection, it corresponds to selectionEnd.
I feel that "origin" doesn't imply a specific ordering as strongly as
"begin" (or "start" for that matter) does.
* In various other cases where "begin" is used as a synonym for "start",
just use "start" for consistency.
* Implement selection_start() and selection_end() methods (and their
_offset() variants) which directly correspond to their DOM
equivalents.
* Rename other related methods to make them less wordy and more
consistent / intention-revealing.
* Add assertions to assert_ok_selection() to ensure that our assumptions
about the ordering of selection_origin and edit_point are met. This
then revealed a bug in adjust_selection_for_horizontal_change() where
the value of selection_direction was not maintained correctly (causing
a unit test failure when the new assertion failed).
Use specific assertions
Similar to #19865
r? jdm
Note: Should I squash all the commits into one commit?
---
- [x] `./mach build -d` does not report any errors
- [x] `./mach test-tidy` does not report any errors
- [x] These changes do not require tests because it should not break anything
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/19868)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This more concrete wrapper type can write a prefix the very first time something
is written to it. This allows removing plenty of useless monomorphisations caused
by the former W/SequenceWriter<W> pair of types.
Implement Element::has_css_layout_box()
r? emilio
Here's my initial attempt to fix#19430. It seems surprisingly simple so I am wondering whether I have missed something! (Or maybe it just actually is quite simple...)
Some things I am unsure about:
1. The spec seems vague about what a [CSS layout box](https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#css-layout-box) actually is. Indeed it says: "The terms CSS layout box and SVG layout box are not currently defined by CSS or SVG."
2. One thing the spec *does* say explicitly is "For the purpose of the requirements in this specification, elements that have a computed value of the display property that is table-column or table-column-group must be considered to have an associated CSS layout box (the column or column group, respectively)." I am unclear about the relevance of this, since [overflow does not apply](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-3/#overflow-properties) to an [internal table element](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display-3/#layout-specific-display). Therefore I haven't done anything about this explicitly, but maybe I'm missing some nuance.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/19803)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Calling scroll() on an element which is not rendered (by a parent with
display: none) would previously cause a crash. In fact, we should
terminate the algorithm
[https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-element-scroll] at step 10 in
this situation.
The fix hinges on implementing Element::has_css_layout_box() correctly,
rather than just returning true in all cases as we did previously.
Fixes#19430.
Implement the create an element for token algorithm
<!-- Please describe your changes on the following line: -->
---
<!-- Thank you for contributing to Servo! Please replace each `[ ]` by `[X]` when the step is complete, and replace `__` with appropriate data: -->
- [X] `./mach build -d` does not report any errors
- [X] `./mach test-tidy` does not report any errors
- [X] These changes fix#19392 and fix#19393 (github issue number if applicable).
<!-- Either: -->
- [ ] There are tests for these changes OR
- [ ] These changes do not require tests because _____
<!-- Also, please make sure that "Allow edits from maintainers" checkbox is checked, so that we can help you if you get stuck somewhere along the way.-->
<!-- Pull requests that do not address these steps are welcome, but they will require additional verification as part of the review process. -->
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/19397)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
replace DocumentSource::NotFromParser with DocumentSource::FromParser
<!-- Please describe your changes on the following line: -->
per https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/4297/files#r158729975
---
<!-- Thank you for contributing to Servo! Please replace each `[ ]` by `[X]` when the step is complete, and replace `__` with appropriate data: -->
- [X] `./mach build -d` does not report any errors
- [X] `./mach test-tidy` does not report any errors
- [ ] These changes fix #__ (github issue number if applicable).
<!-- Either: -->
- [ ] There are tests for these changes OR
- [ ] These changes do not require tests because _____
<!-- Also, please make sure that "Allow edits from maintainers" checkbox is checked, so that we can help you if you get stuck somewhere along the way.-->
<!-- Pull requests that do not address these steps are welcome, but they will require additional verification as part of the review process. -->
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/19647)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
