The following IDLs have the src/href attributes typed as a DOMString
while in the spec the attribute has been updated to be a USVString:
- HTMLIFrameElement
- HTMLImageElement
- HTMLInputElement
- HTMLLinkElement
- HTMLMediaElement
- HTMLScriptElement
Avoid `Window::GetComputedStyle` when checking for `display: none`
<!-- Please describe your changes on the following line: -->
Refactored Window::GetComputedStyle to use Element::Style.
Not sure which tests are relevant, but I've ran the dom, fetch & 2dcontext wpt tests. They don't seem to give errors.
---
<!-- 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#19885.
<!-- Either: -->
- [x] These changes do not require tests because it's a refactoring task
<!-- 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/20012)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This enables us to implement Element::has_css_layout_box() in a more
direct way, and also enables us to remove some of the existing more
specific queries.
Fixes#19811.
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.
Right now we go through a lot of hoops to see if we ever see a relevant link.
However, that information is not needed: if the element is a link, we'll always
need to compute its visited style because its its own relevant link.
If the element inherits from a link, we need to also compute the visited style
anyway.
So the "has a relevant link been found" is pretty useless when we know what are
we inheriting from.
The branches at the beginning of matches_complex_selector_internal were
affecting performance, and there are no good reasons to keep them.
I've verified that this passes all the visited tests in mozilla central, and
that the test-cases too-flaky to be landed still pass.
scroll, SetScrollTop, SetScrollLeft in `element.rs`
<!-- Please describe your changes on the following line: -->
Currently dom-element-scroll have not finished yet. (Step 10)
This PR finish the step 10 of `scroll`, `SetScrollTop`, `SetScrollLeft`
[Step 10 description](https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-element-scrolltop):
> If the element does not have any associated CSS layout box, the element has no associated scrolling box, or the element has no overflow, terminate these steps.
---
<!-- 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#19114 (github issue number if applicable).
<!-- Either: -->
- [X] There are tests for these changes
<!-- 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/19127)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Use try syntax for Option where appropriate
- [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 they are refactoring only
<!-- 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/18968)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Update bitflags to 1.0 in every servo crate
It still needs dependencies update to remove all the other bitflags
versions.
- [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's a dependency update
<!-- 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/18809)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
Servo currently uses `heapsize`, but Stylo/Gecko use `malloc_size_of`.
`malloc_size_of` is better -- it handles various cases that `heapsize` does not
-- so this patch changes Servo to use `malloc_size_of`.
This patch makes the following changes to the `malloc_size_of` crate.
- Adds `MallocSizeOf` trait implementations for numerous types, some built-in
(e.g. `VecDeque`), some external and Servo-only (e.g. `string_cache`).
- Makes `enclosing_size_of_op` optional, because vanilla jemalloc doesn't
support that operation.
- For `HashSet`/`HashMap`, falls back to a computed estimate when
`enclosing_size_of_op` isn't available.
- Adds an extern "C" `malloc_size_of` function that does the actual heap
measurement; this is based on the same functions from the `heapsize` crate.
This patch makes the following changes elsewhere.
- Converts all the uses of `heapsize` to instead use `malloc_size_of`.
- Disables the "heapsize"/"heap_size" feature for the external crates that
provide it.
- Removes the `HeapSizeOf` implementation from `hashglobe`.
- Adds `ignore` annotations to a few `Rc`/`Arc`, because `malloc_size_of`
doesn't derive those types, unlike `heapsize`.
Fixes warnings from rust-lang/rust#44229 when `--enable-commonmark` is
passed to rustdoc.
This is mostly a global find-and-replace for bare URIs on lines by
themselves in doc comments.
