Closed
Bug 822766
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
"ASSERTION: can't call on root" (ReplaceAnimationRule calling nsRuleNode::GetLevel)
Categories
(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla20
People
(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: bzbarsky)
References
Details
(Keywords: assertion, testcase)
Attachments
(3 files)
###!!! ASSERTION: can't call on root: '!IsRoot()', file layout/style/nsRuleNode.h, line 650
|
Reporter | |
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
|
Assignee | |
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Hmm. Seems like this would get hit if aOldAnimRule is the least-specific rule involved, right?
Blocks: 653645
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Though it's not quite clear to me how you can end up with an animation rule that's least-specific if the animation comes from author rules...
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
In this case, when ReplaceAnimationRule is called aOldRuleNode is a rulenode for an animation rule and its parent is the root, and aNewAnimationRule is null, so it all makes sense.
|
|
Assignee | |
Updated•12 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → bzbarsky
Whiteboard: [need review]
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #694527 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
|
||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 694527 [details] [diff] [review]
Be a bit more careful with our level assert in ReplaceAnimationRule.
r=dbaron
I presume you tested the crashtest aborted without the patch?
Attachment #694527 -
Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
It doesn't abort, but it does assert without the patch, so fails tests.
|
|
Assignee | |
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Flags: in-testsuite+
Whiteboard: [need review]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla20
|
||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•