4 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Hiroyuki Ikezoe	dfb634646c	Bug 1278136 - Part 4: Tests to check stacking context for correct effect in cascading rule. r=birtles, bz ... These tests aim to confirm that part 5 does not cause any regressons. MozReview-Commit-ID: BtZ1OGiilmQ	2016-10-12 09:59:02 +09:00
Phil Ringnalda	2ab744056c	Backed out 2 changesets (bug 1278136) for failures in no-stacking-context-opacity-removing-animation-in-delay.html ... Backed out changeset 62cf4a7d6007 (bug 1278136) Backed out changeset 5f2db29e67ca (bug 1278136) MozReview-Commit-ID: K9WcZFjL2XB	2016-10-11 20:40:36 -07:00
Hiroyuki Ikezoe	37765aa8ea	Bug 1278136 - Part 4: Tests to check stacking context for correct effect in cascading rule. r=birtles, bz ... These tests aim to confirm that part 5 does not cause any regressons. Adding this bunch of reftests makes a slight change in the result of layout/reftests/bugs/395107-2.html on Android, so fuzzy-if was also added for the test. MozReview-Commit-ID: BtZ1OGiilmQ	2016-10-12 09:59:02 +09:00
Hiroyuki Ikezoe	72ab9ce7e5	Bug 1278136 - Part 2: We should not check whether the animation can run on the compositor or it's paused when determining if we should create a stacking context. r=birtles,mattwoodrow ... We should create a stacking context for any transform or opacity animations that are either "in effect" (what we currently do) OR "current", i.e. scheduled to run or running. *BUT* for now, we don't create any stacking context in before phase without fill:backwards or fill:both because the property never wins in cascade until the animation gets "in effect". This restriction will be removed in a subsequent patch in this bug after landing bug 1279403. MozReview-Commit-ID: 8RyLJNPtoKI	2016-06-27 12:52:53 +09:00