Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him) Reporter
	Description • 22 years ago

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 Phoenix/0.5
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 Phoenix/0.5

 If you click on the <select> boxes or the submit or reset buttons on the
example page, the width of the <div> will gradually shrink as reflow events occur.

If you view the source of this page, you will see that there is a <div
class="entry"> with a width of 90% nested inside a <div class="main"> with
position=absolute. The reflow in question does not occur if:

    * position attribute is not set for <div class="main">
    * width=100% for <div class="entry">
    * there is not enough text inside <div class="entry"> that it requires line
wrapping


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Click on <select> box or form buttons on affected page.

Actual Results:  
<div> is dynamically resized (get smaller) each time a new item is selected in
the <select> boxes, or the form buttons (submit or reset) are pressed.

Expected Results:  
No reflow should occur.

	Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him) Reporter
	Comment 1 • 22 years ago

This is the same page as listed in the URL field, if you would like to download
and test locally.

	Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him) Reporter
	Comment 2 • 22 years ago

Symptoms are similar to those listed in bug #162268.

	Asa Dotzler [:asa]
	Comment 3 • 22 years ago

->layout

	Paul van Schayck
	Comment 4 • 20 years ago

See it happening:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041109 Firefox/1.0

	Mats Palmgren (inactive)
	Comment 5 • 20 years ago

The shrinking width part of the problem was fixed by bug 201897.
The remaining problem that form control elements move when you click on them is
reported elsewhere I think. Possibly bug 147558?

	Hideo Saito
	Comment 6 • 19 years ago

In the simple testcase, the width of the <div> will shrink half as reflow
events occur, since the incremental reflow measures only a line of "ccccc
ddddd".

	Hideo Saito
	Comment 7 • 19 years ago

The test patch is able to reflow all lines.

	Bernd
	Comment 8 • 19 years ago

Comment on attachment 183405 [details] [diff] [review]
test patch

This patch is so obviously wrong. How many times does a frame get a initial
reflow, as the word says initial => once. So what does the patch do? It simply
forces another unconstrained reflow by changing the reflowreason to initial.
The chances to get this reviewed are 0.

	Hideo Saito
	Comment 9 • 19 years ago

I mixed two patches that is 1. the changes for absolutely positioned frame with
'auto' width and 2. the changes for changing the line layout as reflow events
occur.

The changes for 1. causes to mark all lines dirty and the changes for 2. causes
to mark the previous line dirty. I think that the changes for 2. concerns with
Bug 92217.

	Bernd
	Comment 12 • 19 years ago

Comment on attachment 183583 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

For me this patch is not better than the first one. It will mark lines dirty if
the parent has auto width.
The following is a repetition from a another review denial but it applies here
as well:
1. No hacks, please
2. I believe this is a hack, in order to convince me that this is not the case
please provide a reflow log and show where it goes wrong and how this patch
fixes the situation. Please pay special attention to the maximumWidth.

Looking at attachment 183402 [details], it probably first requests the maximumwidth and
sets that as the outerdiv width as it shrinks around the container. When the
link is focussed it wraps as it probably uses the previous width instead of the
maximumwidth. This patch reinforces a new maximumwidth computation by marking
all lines dirty. 

However I am not a block specialist like roc or dbaron are but I am pretty
confident that this is wrong.

	Bernd
	Comment 13 • 19 years ago

s/this is/this patch is/

	Hideo Saito
	Comment 14 • 17 years ago

This problem is already fixed from build of seamonkey-1.5a-20061208-trunk/WinXP and later, I think this is fixed by the fix for Bug 300030.