Closed Bug 467460 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Inconsistent positioning with -moz-transform:translate, position:fixed

Categories

(Core :: Layout: Positioned, defect, P2)

defect

Tracking

()

VERIFIED FIXED
mozilla1.9.1b3

People

(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: dbaron)

References

Details

(Keywords: testcase, verified1.9.1)

Attachments

(3 files)

The two files have the same final DOM, so they should look identical. Based on layout/reftests/transform/abspos-1b.html
Attached file testcase (dynamic) (deleted) —
Attached file reference (static) (deleted) —
The problem is that in the dynamic one we make it a normal fixed-positioned child of the viewport rather than putting it on the absolute list of the element with transform, as we should do.
Assignee: nobody → dbaron
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Component: Layout → Layout: R & A Pos
OS: Mac OS X → All
QA Contact: layout → layout.r-and-a-pos
Hardware: PC → All
Attached patch patch (deleted) — Splinter Review
This is pretty trivial; just set things up in the dynamic case the same way we do when constructing from the top. I probably ought to add a test for both constructors somehow, but so far I only have Jesse's. Luckily I fixed the wrong constructor first, so I noticed there were two.
Attachment #350917 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #350917 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #350917 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #350917 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #350917 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #350917 - Flags: review+
(In reply to comment #4) > I probably ought to add a test for both constructors somehow, but so far I only > have Jesse's. Luckily I fixed the wrong constructor first, so I noticed there > were two. I intended to help you out with this, but it looks to me as if we only call the four parameter constructor. I did some searching through MXR, and really this is the only instance of us constructing this object that I've found: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/base/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp#7933 Is there something I'm missing? Also marking this as wanted 1.9.1 since we are touting our CSS-Tranform support in that release, this should get checked in to that branch too after it bakes.
Flags: wanted1.9.1?
Mostly we construct them on the stack, so you'll see "nsFrameConstructorState state(...)".
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.2a1
Comment on attachment 350917 [details] [diff] [review] patch Somewhat nasty and pretty trivial-to-fix incremental layout bug related to a new feature (-moz-transform).
Attachment #350917 - Flags: approval1.9.1?
Shouldn't this be backported to 1.9.1, as this feature will be introduced in 3.1, and so the bug hasn't been shipped in a stable release yet?
dbaron already requested approval for the backport :)
Comment on attachment 350917 [details] [diff] [review] patch a191=beltzner
Attachment #350917 - Flags: approval1.9.1? → approval1.9.1+
Whiteboard: [needs 191 landing]
David, don't forget to land this!
Keywords: fixed1.9.1
Whiteboard: [needs 191 landing]
Target Milestone: mozilla1.9.2a1 → mozilla1.9.1b3
Flags: in-testsuite+
Flags: wanted1.9.1? → blocking1.9.1+
Priority: -- → P2
verified FIXED on builds: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090721 Minefield/3.6a1pre ID:20090721044139 and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1pre) Gecko/20090720 Shiretoko/3.5.1pre ID:20090720042942
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: