I'm fed up with having to use the NS_*Hint functions, and I also have
trouble reading/writing some of them since I don't remember the order of
parameters.
(At some point I think we should convert existing callers, but I don't
plan to do that here.)
It is not correct to stop restyling by leaving the old style context on
the frame and returning eRestyleResult_Stop when TryStartingTransition
provides a new, without-animations style context. This is at least
because the new new style context could have different styles from the
old new style context.
The test fails without the patch (missing underline on "an underline")
and passes with the patch (where the underline is present, and aligned
with the non-displaced text).
I confirmed that we're actually using this codepath by manually testing
<input type=color>: it works with the patch, but if I comment out the
call to nsHTMLCSSStyleSheet::PseudoElementRulesMatching from
nsStyleSet::RuleNodeWithReplacement, then the color swatch breaks, which
proves that we're depending on the code.
I think I included this in the queue because it is needed for patch 22,
although I've forgotten the full reasoning.
Note that this means that when we start transitions, we post restyles
that are processed during the current restyling operation, rather than
in a later phase. This depends on patch 11, which makes the transition
manager skip style changes that it posts while starting transitions, to
ensure that this doesn't lead to an infinite loop. This also depends on
patch 16, which only consumes restyle data for the primary frame, to
ensure that the animation restyles posted are processed properly. It
also depends on patch 14, which makes us retain data on finished
transitions, to avoid triggering extra transitions on descendants when
both an ancestor and a descendant transition an inherited property, and
the descendant does so faster.
This fixes a known failure in layout/style/test/test_animations.html and
test_animations_omta.html (as visible in the patch). I believe this is
because this patch changes us to compute keyframe values for animations
on top of a style context *with* animation data rather than one without,
which means what we're computing them on top of changes each time. (The
purpose of patch 3 was to avoid this in the case where avoiding it
matters, i.e., implicit 0% and 100% keyframes.)
This is needed for patch 17, which removes restyling phases, so that
when the transition manager posts a restyle to undo the covering done by
the cover rule, that restyle doesn't get consumed by an inner frame.
This is needed to prevent these reftests from failing:
layout/reftests/svg/smil/smil-transitions-interaction-1a.svg
layout/reftests/svg/smil/smil-transitions-interaction-1b.svg
layout/reftests/svg/smil/smil-transitions-interaction-2a.svg
layout/reftests/svg/smil/smil-transitions-interaction-2b.svg
layout/reftests/svg/smil/smil-transitions-interaction-4a.svg
layout/reftests/svg/smil/smil-transitions-interaction-4b.svg
The mIsCSS path fixes the a tests, and the !mIsCSS path fixes the b tests.
This is because this patch series changes the way in which transitions
interact with other types of animations to depend on those animations
being flushed in the animation-only style flush. (The relevant call is
added in patch 6, though we don't really depend on it until patch 17.)
This depends on bug 1087536 patch 3, which posts animation restyles
using the eRestyle_CSSTransitions and eRestyle_CSSAnimations hints.
This is used by patch 6.
This makes UpdateOverflow hint handling (which definitely did previously
need CHILDREN_AND_PARENT_CHANGED) and handling of related hints (which I
believe never actually needed CHILDREN_AND_PARENT_CHANGED) use the
CHILDREN_CHANGED hint in the overflow changed tracker, since use of
CHILDREN_AND_PARENT_CHANGED is no longer needed following the
introduction of the UpdateParentOverflow hint in patch 2.
This cleans up after bug 984226, which introduced
CHILDREN_AND_PARENT_CHANGED to deal with the facts that:
(1) most properties whose changes yield UpdateOverflow style hints
imply that an element's overflow area may have changed, and
propagation to ancestors can stop without updating the element's
parent if the element's own overflow area didn't change.
(2) a few properties whose changes yield UpdateOverflow style hints
actually don't change the overflow area of the element on which the
property changed, but instead change that element's overflow area
on the element's parent.
Having two separate hints means that we don't have to do the extra work
of always updating the parent's overflow area (when the child's overflow
area didn't actually change) for the properties in category (1), and we
don't have to do extra work of updating the element's own overflow area
for properties in category (2).
I don't have any tests that exercise this code, and I can't even find a
codepath that demonstrates that it's needed, since the lazy
reconstruction that happens during style-triggered frame reconstruction
all appears to go through PostRestyleEvent rather than
MaybeConstructLazily.
But I think we should either do this or add an assertion that it's not
needed, and given that it's one line, it seems like we may as well just
do it. (Note also that we're currently calling CreateNeededFrames at
the start of style reresolution, in
RestyleManager::ProcessPendingRestyles; this adds a call at the end.)
This makes the ReframingStyleContexts live across the lifetime of the
processing of a full queue of posted restyles.
This depends on bug 1115812 to behave sensibly (and not assert) when
rebuilding the rule tree (RebuildAllStyleData, etc.).
This handles the form of lazy frame construction that is done in
nsCSSFrameConstructor::RecreateFramesForContent, which posts a restyle.
Patch 7 handles any use of the lazy frame construction mechanism.
This patch (with patches 4 and 5 under it, but without patches 1-3)
fixes the original testcase in bug 1110277, except for some flashing of
the final position as the transition starts.
Also fixes bug 1111451.
These assertions are as requested in comment 30 in the bug.
(If the first one doesn't fire, it's possible we could even get rid of
the handling of mDoRebuildAllStyleData that it's within.)
If we discover that we've set mDoRebuildAllStyleData in the middle of
ProcessPendingRestyles(), now that ProcessPendingRestyles() fully
handles mDoRebuildAllStyleData, we only need to make a recursive call to
ProcessPendingRestyles, rather than calling RebuildAllStyleData to call
ProcessPendingRestyles.
