Closed
Bug 623423
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Permaorange reftests on WinXP: editor/xul/empty-1.xul, editor/xul/autocomplete-1.xul, editor/xul/emptyautocomplete-1.xul, editor/xul/number-3.xul, editor/xul/number-5.xul, editor/xul/numberwithvalue-1.xul
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Editor, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla2.0b10
People
(Reporter: philor, Assigned: ehsan.akhgari)
References
Details
Attachments
(3 files, 1 obsolete file)
(deleted),
text/plain
|
Details | |
(deleted),
patch
|
roc
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Now that we're running reftests on WinXP opt (as seen in http://tbpl.mozilla.org/?noignore=1), you can see that layout/reftests/editor/xul/input.css needs some adjustment for windows-default-theme when it's the XP default theme. The first one looks like it's just the way XP emptytext isn't italic, the rest appear to be padding differences.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → ehsan
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #502065 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #502065 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Fixed the Windows XP user agent detection code.
Attachment #502065 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #502297 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #502065 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #502065 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 502297 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch (v2)
Make the class "winxp" I think just for clarity.
Attachment #502297 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [orange] → [needs landing]
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [needs landing] → [xp-orange][needs landing]
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [xp-orange][needs landing] → [xp-orange]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b10
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Oddly, my patch in bug 658949 seems to "regress" this -- changing it from KNOWN FAIL to UNEXPECTED FAIL. Somehow, that patch seems to break the "fails-if" lines added in comment 5 here... Not sure why. (that patch is being backed out while I investigate)
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
Ah, figured it out, in bug 658949 comment 23. Have a fix, & all is well -- sorry for spamming this bug.
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [xp-orange]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•