Some baseline exports are context-sensitive. One example: In line-layout scenario,
the last baseline of a scroll container is always the margin-end. In other (e.g.
flex, grid) scenarios, it's the border-box clamped offset to the last line in the
container.
This enables the required 3 different behaviours for `inline-block` scroll containers
for 3 different `baseline-source` values:
- `auto`: Last baseline, margin-end
- `first`: Border-box clamped offset to the first line
- `last`: Border-box clamped offset to the last line
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173886
Some baseline exports are context-sensitive. One example: In line-layout scenario,
the last baseline of a scroll container is always the margin-end. In other (e.g.
flex, grid) scenarios, it's the border-box clamped offset to the last line in the
container.
This enables the required 3 different behaviours for `inline-block` scroll containers
for 3 different `baseline-source` values:
- `auto`: Last baseline, margin-end
- `first`: Border-box clamped offset to the first line
- `last`: Border-box clamped offset to the last line
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173886
Some baseline exports are context-sensitive. One example: In line-layout scenario,
the last baseline of a scroll container is always the margin-end. In other (e.g.
flex, grid) scenarios, it's the border-box clamped offset to the last line in the
container.
This enables the required 3 different behaviours for `inline-block` scroll containers
for 3 different `baseline-source` values:
- `auto`: Last baseline, margin-end
- `first`: Border-box clamped offset to the first line
- `last`: Border-box clamped offset to the last line
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173886
Some baseline exports are context-sensitive. One example: In line-layout scenario,
the last baseline of a scroll container is always the margin-end. In other (e.g.
flex, grid) scenarios, it's the border-box clamped offset to the last line in the
container.
This enables the required 3 different behaviours for `inline-block` scroll containers
for 3 different `baseline-source` values:
- `auto`: Last baseline, margin-end
- `first`: Border-box clamped offset to the first line
- `last`: Border-box clamped offset to the last line
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173886
Some baseline exports are context-sensitive. One example: In line-layout scenario,
the last baseline of a scroll container is always the margin-end. In other (e.g.
flex, grid) scenarios, it's the border-box clamped offset to the last line in the
container.
This enables the required 3 different behaviours for `inline-block` scroll containers
for 3 different `baseline-source` values:
- `auto`: Last baseline, margin-end
- `first`: Border-box clamped offset to the first line
- `last`: Border-box clamped offset to the last line
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173886
Some baseline exports are context-sensitive. One example: In line-layout scenario,
the last baseline of a scroll container is always the margin-end. In other (e.g.
flex, grid) scenarios, it's the border-box clamped offset to the last line in the
container.
This enables the required 3 different behaviours for `inline-block` scroll containers
for 3 different `baseline-source` values:
- `auto`: Last baseline, margin-end
- `first`: Border-box clamped offset to the first line
- `last`: Border-box clamped offset to the last line
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173886
We still have some remnants of XUL layout due to nsBox / nsLeafBoxFrame
which XUL trees / nsTextBoxFrame still use.
However all this code can go away before we get rid of those.
nsSplitterFrame was the last thing inheriting from nsBoxFrame.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173601
This rewrites scrollbar layout to work with regular reflow rather than
box layout.
Overall it's about the same amount of code (mostly because
nsScrollbarFrame::Reflow is sorta hand-rolled), but it cleans up a bit
and it is progress towards removing XUL layout altogether, without
getting into much deeper refactoring.
This also blocks some other performance improvements and refactorings I
want to make in this code.
We make some assumptions to simplify the code that to some extent were
made already before, both explicitly and by virtue of using XUL layout.
In particular, we assume that scrollbar / slider / thumb has no border or
padding and that the writing-mode is horizontal ltr.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173489
This rewrites scrollbar layout to work with regular reflow rather than
box layout.
Overall it's about the same amount of code (mostly because
nsScrollbarFrame::Reflow is sorta hand-rolled), but it cleans up a bit
and it is progress towards removing XUL layout altogether, without
getting into much deeper refactoring.
This also blocks some other performance improvements and refactorings I
want to make in this code.
We make some assumptions to simplify the code that to some extent were
made already before, both explicitly and by virtue of using XUL layout.
In particular, we assume that scrollbar / slider / thumb has no border or
padding and that the writing-mode is horizontal ltr.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173489
Previously, for writing-mode using central baseline alignment (i.e. `vertical-(lr|rl)`,
we simply used the center of content-box in `nsLineLayout::VerticalAlignFrames`.
However, this is incorrect for e.g. a `div` with two lines of text - just like how
its alphabetical baseline is the baseline of the second line of text, the central
baseline should be the centerline of the second line.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D172165
I didn't revert some tweaks for tests (e.g. allowing small fractional scroll
position differences) since we will end up allowing the differences until
we fixed all rounding/snapping scroll related metrics issue, bug 1774315 for
example.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170465
Previously, for writing-mode using central baseline alignment (i.e. `vertical-(lr|rl)`,
we simply used the center of content-box in `nsLineLayout::VerticalAlignFrames`.
However, this is incorrect for e.g. a `div` with two lines of text - just like how
its alphabetical baseline is the baseline of the second line of text, the central
baseline should be the centerline of the second line.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D172165
Previously, for writing-mode using central baseline alignment (i.e. `vertical-(lr|rl)`,
we simply used the center of content-box in `nsLineLayout::VerticalAlignFrames`.
However, this is incorrect for e.g. a `div` with two lines of text - just like how
its alphabetical baseline is the baseline of the second line of text, the central
baseline should be the centerline of the second line.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D172165
Now that we've removed nsXULScrollFrame, ScrollFrameHelper can be
subsumed under nsHTMLScrollFrame.
I want to do this before making scrollbars non-XUL.
Renaming to mozilla::ScrollFrame is left for a follow-up bug.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D173063
The underlying issue here is an invalidation bug with XUL layout. When a
popup opens, we try to lay it out at full size, then post a reflow
callback to constrain it.
There's an intermediate step there where the popup might remain at full
size, and the constraining operates directly on mRect, which isn't quite
sound and doesn't update the scrollport of descendants.
Make nsMenuPopupFrame inherit from nsBlockFrame instead, doing
potentially two layout passes when constrained.
This fixes the issue at hand, and removes XUL layout from menu popups,
so it's a win-win.
To make reasoning about it a bit easier, factor out a bunch of the XUL
positioning code to be const. The mutation of mRect etc which was going
on otherwise was pretty hard to reason about.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170368
I didn't revert some tweaks for tests (e.g. allowing small fractional scroll
position differences) since we will end up allowing the differences until
we fixed all rounding/snapping scroll related metrics issue, bug 1774315 for
example.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170465
I didn't revert some tweaks for tests (e.g. allowing small fractional scroll
position differences) since we will end up allowing the differences until
we fixed all rounding/snapping scroll related metrics issue, bug 1774315 for
example.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170465
For programmatic scrolls, we should respect a users general.smoothScroll
preference. If smooth scrolls are disabled, programmatic scrolls with
behavior: "smooth" should be treated as instant programmatic scrolls.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170110
Before, there existed 3 virtual functions that calculated baselines:
- `GetLogicalBaseline`
- `GetVerticalAlignBaseline`
- `GetNaturalBaselineBOffset`
Each of them had slightly different behaviours:
- `GetLogicalBaseline` would synthesize a baseline if there is no baseline.
Others would simply return `false`.
- `GetNaturalBaselineBOffset` requires the caller to pick which of first/last
baseline to calculate. Others pick on on their own.
- `GetNaturalBaselineBOffset`'s result can be either offset from border box
start/end edge, depending on the caller-supplied baseline. Others always
return offset from border box start edge.
Now:
- `GetNaturalBaselineBOffset` is the sole virtual function.
- `GetLogicalBaseline` exists to support its use, with 2 virtual helper functions:
- `SynthesizeFallbackBaseline` to generate a baseline for elements that
doesn't have one.
- `GetBaselineSharingGroup` to preserve the default baseline picking behaviour.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D167990
For programmatic scrolls, we should respect a users general.smoothScroll
preference. If smooth scrolls are disabled, programmatic scrolls with
behavior: "smooth" should be treated as instant programmatic scrolls.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170110
For programmatic scrolls, we should respect a users general.smoothScroll
preference. If smooth scrolls are disabled, programmatic scrolls with
behavior: "smooth" should be treated as instant programmatic scrolls.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D170110
The spec is still using `Scroll-linked`, so we exclude the change of WPT tests.
I believe WPT will get updates once the spec doc is renamed.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D165914
APZ cannot currently scroll in directions which are overflow:hidden
(it does not know the full scroll range bounds in those directions).
Therefore, main-thread scrolling in these directions should not be
handed off to APZ.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D161351
Use the original start position of main thread smooth scrolls to determine
if the scroll position changed on scroll complete, and fire a scrollend
event if it did.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D163550
