Closed
Bug 1289829
Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
Specific styling causes graphic corruption when I scroll fake scrollbar on https://vk.com/
Categories
(Core :: Graphics, defect)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla51
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox47 | --- | unaffected |
firefox48 | --- | wontfix |
firefox49 | --- | wontfix |
firefox50 | --- | fixed |
firefox51 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: arni2033, Assigned: sotaro)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(3 files, 5 obsolete files)
(deleted),
image/png
|
Details | |
(deleted),
patch
|
mattwoodrow
:
review+
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
lizzard
:
approval-mozilla-beta-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
sotaro
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
>>> My Info: Win7_64, Nightly 50, 32bit, ID 20160726080520 (2016-07-26)
STR_1:
0. Make sure DPI is set to 1.0
1. Open http://opaliha-o3.org/
2. Scroll the page so that iframe http://vk.com/ was fully visible
3. Move mouse to the center of that iframe, rotate mouse wheel to the bottom several times
AR: A dark-blue line appears at the right side of scrollbar
ER: No extra blue lines
Note: If you can't reproduce, I recommend to test this on "Jeff's machine" mentioned in bug 1234567
This is regression from bug 1245552. Regression range:
> https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=d916e452018046a5b2cb7699937e2d40171bf9e4&tochange=85f0d8ad266f3132aa4d5ff7cd23cab41b128af2
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Correction:
* to test this on "Jeff' machine" mentioned in bug 1287066. It's in "See also" list.
Comment 2•8 years ago
|
||
Let me know if you can't reproduce this Sotaro and I can test using the Toronto windows machine for us, including Jeff's machine.
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → sotaro.ikeda.g
Updated•8 years ago
|
status-firefox47:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox48:
--- → affected
status-firefox49:
--- → affected
status-firefox50:
--- → affected
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•8 years ago
|
||
At first I failed to reproduce the problem. Then I just succeeded to reproduce the problem. It is easier to reproduce the problem when HWA is enabled.
Comment 4•8 years ago
|
||
Too late for 48 but happy to take a patch in 49
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•8 years ago
|
||
There seems to exist an inconsitency between surface size and maskTransform by changing surface size.
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•8 years ago
|
||
attachment 8776454 [details] [diff] [review] addressed problem for me.
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8776454 -
Attachment description: patch - Change surfaceSize calculation → patch - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8776454 -
Attachment description: patch - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation → patch part 1 - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8776823 -
Attachment description: patch - fuzz some tests → patch part2 - fuzz some tests
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8776823 -
Attachment description: patch part2 - fuzz some tests → patch part 2 - fuzz some tests
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•8 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8776823 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•8 years ago
|
||
Somehow fuzz of clipping-7.html did not work. It seems to be caused by "fuzzy-if(skiaContent,16,27)", if it is removed, the fuzz worked well.
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Sotaro Ikeda [:sotaro] from comment #12)
> Somehow fuzz of clipping-7.html did not work. It seems to be caused by
> "fuzzy-if(skiaContent,16,27)", if it is removed, the fuzz worked well.
Previous general fuzz setting was overridden by "fuzzy-if(skiaContent,16,27)".
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•8 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8776853 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•8 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8776454 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow)
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8777183 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow)
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8776454 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow) → review+
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8777183 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow) → review+
Comment 16•8 years ago
|
||
Pushed by sikeda@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5b940f1bf535
Change mask SurfaceSize calculation r=mattwoodrow
Comment 17•8 years ago
|
||
Backout by cbook@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/242fcdd56995
Backed out changeset 5b940f1bf535 for reftest failures
Comment 18•8 years ago
|
||
backed out for reftest failures like https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#?job_id=33297848&repo=mozilla-inbound
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•8 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8777183 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8777716 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•8 years ago
|
||
Comment 22•8 years ago
|
||
Pushed by sikeda@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4e8a67e61102
Change mask SurfaceSize calculation r=mattwoodrow
Comment 23•8 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
status-firefox51:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla51
Want to request uplift here?
Do we think this is a common problem users see?
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Flags: needinfo?(bgirard)
Comment 25•8 years ago
|
||
I don't think mask layers are used that often but I can't say exactly. I think we're using them a bit more recently. I'll let Sotaro make the call.
Flags: needinfo?(bgirard)
Comment 26•8 years ago
|
||
backed out:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e91880668542e00140784bc57e747aece36480ae
for a performance regression in bug 1294342.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•8 years ago
|
||
The change is necessary to prevent oom on android, but it seems to cause performance regression on another platforms.
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•8 years ago
|
||
Change mask SurfaceSize calculation when MOZ_GFX_OPTIMIZE_MOBILE is defined.
Attachment #8776454 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•8 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8781792 [details] [diff] [review]
patch part 1 - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
:mattwoodrow, can you review the patch again?
Attachment #8781792 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow)
Updated•8 years ago
|
Attachment #8781792 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Sotaro Ikeda [:sotaro] from comment #29)
> Created attachment 8781792 [details] [diff] [review]
> patch part 1 - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
>
> Change mask SurfaceSize calculation when MOZ_GFX_OPTIMIZE_MOBILE is defined.
By attachment 8781792 [details] [diff] [review], alignment change is done only on android. Then, it should not degrade the performance on another platforms.
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•8 years ago
|
||
Rebased.
Attachment #8777716 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8782239 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 33•8 years ago
|
||
Comment 34•8 years ago
|
||
Pushed by sikeda@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/110094e195de
Change mask SurfaceSize calculation r=mattwoodrow
Comment 35•8 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago → 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 36•8 years ago
|
||
Sotaro please request approvals for uplift to 50 and 49.
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Assignee | ||
Comment 37•8 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8781792 [details] [diff] [review]
patch part 1 - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: Bug 1245552
[User impact if declined]: Could cause graphic corruption when mask is used.
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: Locally tested.
[Risks and why]: Low.
[String/UUID change made/needed]: None.
Flags: needinfo?(sotaro.ikeda.g)
Attachment #8781792 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8781792 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Updated•8 years ago
|
Updated•8 years ago
|
Hi arni2033, could you please verify this issue is fixed as expected on a latest Nightly build? Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(arni2033)
Comment on attachment 8781792 [details] [diff] [review]
patch part 1 - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
Fixes a recent regression, Aurora50+
Attachment #8781792 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 40•8 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
I think here we may let the fix ride with 50. If I'm wrong here and you think the impact on users is large, or on many users, we could still consider uplift. But I would rather not take on more last minute uplifts for 49.
Comment on attachment 8781792 [details] [diff] [review]
patch part 1 - Change mask SurfaceSize calculation
Too late for 49 for uncertain user benefit, we have only 1 week till release.
Attachment #8781792 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta? → approval-mozilla-beta-
Reporter | ||
Comment 43•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ritu Kothari (:ritu) from comment #38)
> Hi arni2033, could you please verify this issue is fixed as expected on a latest Nightly build?
No bug: Win7_64, Nightly 51, 32bit, ID 20160913030425 (2016-09-13)
Well, actually that site in iframe (vk.com) changed its styling BEFORE 2016-09-01 (comment 38), so I
couldn't possibly verify this. Now it's pointless to test url from comment 0.
Luckily I found a copy of original page on my hard drive, and now I can verify that this bug doesn't happen. I didn't immediately found the saved page, and also I was busy, so it took me a long time.
(In reply to arni2033 from comment #43)
> (In reply to Ritu Kothari (:ritu) from comment #38)
> > Hi arni2033, could you please verify this issue is fixed as expected on a latest Nightly build?
> No bug: Win7_64, Nightly 51, 32bit, ID 20160913030425 (2016-09-13)
>
> Well, actually that site in iframe (vk.com) changed its styling BEFORE
> 2016-09-01 (comment 38), so I
> couldn't possibly verify this. Now it's pointless to test url from comment 0.
> Luckily I found a copy of original page on my hard drive, and now I can
> verify that this bug doesn't happen. I didn't immediately found the saved
> page, and also I was busy, so it took me a long time.
Awesome! Thank you so much for your due diligence. :)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•