The only fishy bit is the animation stuff. In particular, there are two places
where we just mint the revert behavior:
* When serializing web-animations keyframes (the custom properties stuff in
declaration_block.rs). That codepath is already not sound and I wanted to
get rid of it in bug 1501530, but what do I know.
* When getting an animation value from a property declaration. At that point
we no longer have the CSS rules that apply to the element to compute the
right revert value handy. It'd also use the wrong style anyway, I think,
given the way StyleBuilder::for_animation works.
We _could_ probably get them out of somewhere, but it seems like a whole lot
of code reinventing the wheel which is probably not useful, and that Blink
and WebKit just cannot implement either since they don't have a rule tree,
so it just doesn't seem worth the churn.
The custom properties code looks a bit different in order to minimize hash
lookups in the common case. FWIW, `revert` for custom properties doesn't seem
very useful either, but oh well.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D21877
I feel a bit weird for using LenghtPercentageOrAuto to implement LengthOrAuto,
but I don't think much other code will use it so it seemed a bit better to me.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D21863
Although the methods of Matrix3D in animated_properties.mako.rs could be
simplified by mako, it's a little bit hard to read because they are far
from the usage and definition. Therefore, we move them to the definition of
computed::Matrix3D and expand the mako.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D11961
Basically, most of the animation code of transform don't need mako, so
we could move them into values/animated/transform.rs.
However, we still use mako to generate some code to make the methods of
Matrix3D simpler, so I still leave them in animated_properties.mako.rs.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D11934
The original implementation always returns Rotate::Rotate3D, but it is
not correct, so we have to rewrite it:
1. If both from value and to value are none, we don't have to convert it
into identity value, so just return None.
2. If one of the value is none, we replace it with an identity value based on
the other one's rotate axis.
3. If we only have 2D rotation, we just animate the <angle>.
4. Otherwise, we do interpolation by 3D rotation.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D11247
Basically, we rewrite the type of generics::transform::Translate and its
ToCss to match the spec. Besides, we always serialize Translate by servo,
so we could drop a lot of duplicated code.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D11206
The current spec says: "If only the X value is given, the Y value
defaults to the same value.", so we should update the behavior.
Besides, we also update the serialization, so we serialization both
specified and computed value by servo. We enable the preference
for all the css-transforms, so some of them are passed now.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D10638
There are better ways, plus the existing code didn't handle aliases at
all (not that it needed to, but it's better if it does).
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D10838
See the extended commit message for the following spec change:
6b36d41ebc
Basically, by failing to take the absolute value, for certain content we can end
up doing division by zero which will mean that the test included in this patch
will cause an assertion to fail in debug builds and return
"matrix(NaN, NaN....)" in release builds.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D9618
Looks like this produces sensible results for interpolation with 0, though I'm
not really convinced about the results from, let's say, 1px to 2000px in the
attached test-case, I would've expected a linear interpolation from that to go
through normal length interpolation.
css-transforms-1 says:
> Two transform functions with the same name and the same number of arguments
> are interpolated numerically without a former conversion. The calculated
> value will be of the same transform function type with the same number of
> arguments.
>
> Special rules apply to <matrix()>.
Which is what we do... I was going to file a spec issue but turns out that it's
already addressed in css-transforms-2:
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transforms-2/#interpolation-of-transform-functions
Which says:
> The transform functions <matrix()>, matrix3d() and perspective() get
> converted into 4x4 matrices first and interpolated as defined in section
> Interpolation of Matrices afterwards.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D4942
The setup is that AnimationValue only contains physical properties, and
we physicalize when building keyframes and transitions.
Bug: 1309752
Reviewed-by: birtles
MozReview-Commit-ID: 9dI20N0LFrk
It's possible that both this_weight and other_weght have calculation errors
which are approximately equal to f64::EPSILON.
Bug: 1468294
Reviewed-by: birtles
MozReview-Commit-ID: 8OddG9rI3qd
We were working around the lack of alias support during parsing in
TransitionProperty by doing a Gecko lookup. That's a hack and is now gone.
Bug: 1419695
Reviewed-by: xidorn
MozReview-Commit-ID: EptUvJNTrZr
Corresponding to this spec change;
32812668df
The expected value in test_transitions_per_property.html can be calculated;
'start' + ('end' - 'start') * 0.25
Bug: 1464647
Reviewed-by: birtles, emilio
MozReview-Commit-ID: NI9gOUuPnG
The skew resetting of temp I think fixes a bug in presence of skew in every
direction, but again haven't double-checked.
Bug: 1459403
Reviewed-by: hiro
MozReview-Commit-ID: Bn93CoaG8Bu
Per bug 1322189 we really should. I've copied the setup we have already for
translate / scale, but we should really clean this up a bit more I'd think.
In any case, probably skew should be matched as well...
Bug: 1464615
Reviewed-by: hiro
MozReview-Commit-ID: Jky5k8HVfuH
Also call them "resolve" since it's the general term for computing something
more specific than what you have.
Though I don't feel strongly about that, feel free to push back.
Bug: 1464595
Reviewed-by: hiro
MozReview-Commit-ID: KtqjzlppZLp
It's not sound to insert random matrices in random positions in the transform
operation list.
I cannot make any sense of what the old code was trying to do.
Bug: 1458715
Reviewed-by: hiro
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5BtCiueEPlR
