Implement ChildNode::before & ChildNode::after
Continued from #6536
The current implementations of `ChildNode::before` and
`ChildNode::after` do not match the WHATWG spec. This commit updates the
implementations to match the spec.
Our current implementation of `ChildNode::after` passes all the WPT
tests. So I made sure to add a regression test that failed with the
current implementation. There are a few other unit tests I added
to exhaust other corner cases I encountered.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6800)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Implement getComputedStyle
It's not quite done but can probably be reviewed anyway.
I still need to finish up a few of the ToCss impls, I just got lazy and wanted to make sure things worked.
The computation of the used values is definitely not right, I'm going to investigate that.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6798)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Dispose layout data for every node removed from the tree
Fix for #6754.
cc @jdm – I believe this is all that's required for the fix, but until I get a better sense of #6813, I'm unsure of the best way to test this.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6815)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Continued from #6536
The current implementations of `ChildNode::before` and
`ChildNode::after` do not match the WHATWG spec. This commit updates the
implementations to match the spec.
Our current implementation of `ChildNode::after` passes all the WPT
tests. So I made sure to add a regression test that failed with the
current implementation. There are a few other unit tests I added
to exhaust other corner cases I encountered.
Implement Element.client{Top,Left,Width,Height}
This isn't done, but contains a working implementation of at least `clientTop`. Feedback would be much appreciated: it's probably far from ideal.
Implementing `clientLeft` is straight-forward, I think, but `clientWidth` and `clientHeight` require accessing the `border_box` - and I don't know how that works, yet.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6662)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Cleanup lint special cases, refactor flake8 linting
Currently, there are a few linting functions that only run on certain
filetypes (determined by the file extension). Prior to this commit, the
special cases were handled in a parent function with a conditional. This
commit changes the system so each linting function gets passed a
filename so the function can determine whether it should run or not
based on the file extension.
I also refactored flake8 linting slightly. From what I've read so far of
the code, flake8 itself will only print the results directly to stdout
(though the linter would report the quantity of errors detected).
Prior to this commit, we would let flake8 print directly to stdout and
just determine if there were >0 errors reported. This commit (sort of
hackily) temporarily captures stdout when we call flake8 so we can do
what we want with the output, allowing us to `yield` the line number
and message like we do with the other linting functions.
In my opinion, both of these changes isolate specific behaviors/checks
into their respective linting functions instead of having them handled
at a more global level.
In addition to the changes above:
* The whitespace linter now runs on WebIDL and TOML files
* The license header linter now runs on WebIDL files
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6777)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Remove outdated comment about cloning elements
The comment points to the "implement element prefix" issue, but we clone the element's prefix when we construct the element right above.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6760)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Combining FileReaderEvent and Process into an enum; r=jdm
This one's for #6752. The build was successful for this change. I'll commit the next one for `perform_annotated_read_operation` in a moment...
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6761)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Introduce VirtualMethods::children_changed()
This virtual method mimics the behaviour of mutation observers and make it more viable than the older child_inserted(), which didn't cover removed nodes and was called as many times as there were inserted nodes.
A few other shortcomings where remove_child() was called directly instead of Node::remove() were also fixed while at it.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6660)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This virtual method mimics the behaviour of mutation observers and make it more
viable than the older child_inserted(), which didn't cover removed nodes and
was called as many times as there were inserted nodes.
A few other shortcomings where remove_child() was called directly instead of
Node::remove() were also fixed while at it.
To actually make the multiprocess communication work, we'll need to
reroute the task creation to the pipeline or the compositor. But this
works as a first step.
