When setting `font-family: monospace;` in CSS, we have to interpret
the keyword font sizes (small, medium, large, etc) as slightly smaller
for historical reasons. Normally the medium font size is 16px, but
for monospace it's 13px.
The way this needs to behave is extremely strange:
When encountering `font-family: monospace`, we have to go back and
replay the CSS cascade as if the medium font size had been 13px all
along. Otherwise relative values like 2em/200%/etc could have gotten
lost in the inheritance chain.
We implement this in a fairly naive way by explicitly checking for
`font-family: monospace` (note: it has to be *exactly* like that,
it can't be `font-family: monospace, Courier` or similar.)
When encountered, we simply walk the element ancestors and re-run the
cascade for the font-size property. This is clumsy and inefficient,
but it does work for the common cases.
Other browsers do more elaborate things that we should eventually care
about as well, such as user-configurable font settings, per-language
behavior, etc. For now, this is just something that allows us to handle
more WPT tests where things fall apart due to unexpected font sizes.
To learn more about the wonders of font-size, see this blog post:
https://manishearth.github.io/blog/2017/08/10/font-size-an-unexpectedly-complex-css-property/
This essentially reverts 1b46a52cfc
and adds more tests.
The reverted change was an incorrect workaround for the real issue,
which was that we weren't creating anonymous wrapper boxes around inline
children of table-cell boxes.
Now that this has been fixed, we can go back to aligning text properly.
This fixes an issue where CSS vertical-align on a table-cell box would
incorrectly apply to both the table-cell box and any inline content it
had inside.
The spec changes seem to mostly be about introducing a TrustedHTML type
which we do not yet support, so we have a couple of FIXMEs.
TrustedTypes::InjectionSink is an attempt at matching the spec, but it's
not entirely clear to me how it should work. I'm sure it'll get
revisited once we start implementing trusted types.
Before, adding an overflow'n `Checked<T>` to another `Checked<T>` would
cause a verification faliure when instead it should propogate m_overflow
and allow the user to handle the overflow.
The DevTools client will ask for this actor before trying to render any
box model or computed style information. We can just stub out this actor
for now.
The DevTools client will now send requests to the node actor, rather
than just sending messages to other actors on the node's behalf.
This exposed a slight issue in the way we assign actor IDs. Node actors
are created in the walker actor constructor, which executes before the
actor ID is incremented. So we must be sure to increment the actor ID
before invoking any actor constructors. Otherwise, the walker actor and
the first node actor have the same numeric ID.
We will be asked for different highlighters throughout the DevTools
session, e.g. ViewportSizeOnResizeHighlighter and BoxModelHighlighter.
The latter will be responsible for rendering and overlay on DOM nodes
when the user hovers over a node in the inspector panel.
Our own Inspector differs from most other DevTools implementations with
regard to highlighting DOM nodes as you hover elements in the inspected
DOM tree. In other implementations, as you change the hovered node, the
browser will render a box model overlay onto the page for that node. We
currently don't do this; we wait until you click the node, at which
point we both paint the overlay and inspect the node's properties.
This patch does not change that behavior, but separates the IPCs and
internal tracking of inspected nodes to support the standard DevTools
behavior. So the DOM document now stores an inspected node and a
highlighted node. The former is used for features such as "$0" in the
JavaScript console, and the latter is used for the box model overlay.
Our Inspector continues to set these to the same node.
We currently receive serialized JSON values over IPC and forward them to
them WebView callbacks, leaving it to the implementations of those
callbacks to parse the strings as JSON objects. This patch hoists that
parsing up to WebContentClient as soon as the IPC message is received.
This is to reduce the work needed for secondary implementations of these
callbacks (i.e. our Firefox DevTools server).
I recently questioned whether this would work as expected:
JsonValue value { JsonObject {} };
auto object = move(value.as_object());
So this just adds a unit test to ensure that it does.
Previously, the charset of name "UTF-16BE/LE" would be checked against
when following standards to convert the charset to UTF-8, but in
reality, the charsets "UTF-16BE" and "UTF-16LE" should be checked
separately.
Co-authored-by: Jelle Raaijmakers <jelle@ladybird.org>
This information is not particularly interesting, and it can be quite
verbose (such as style-propagation-for-long-continuation-chain.html,
which would log hundreds of lines of "a"s and "b"s).
This reduces the number of `.cpp` files that need to be recompiled when
one of the below header files changes as follows:
CSS/ComputedProperties.h: 1113 -> 49
CSS/ComputedValues.h: 1120 -> 209
This reduces the number of `.cpp` files that need to be recompiled when
one of the below header files changes as follows:
Painting/Command.h: 1030 -> 61
Painting/DisplayList.h: 1030 -> 60
Painting/DisplayListRecorder.h: 557 -> 59
One point to note is that I am not entirely sure what the result
of the pre-existing valueAsNumber test should be for this strange
case which does not lie exactly on a week/day boundary. Chrome
gives a negative timestamp, which seems more wrong than the result
we give, and neither gecko or WebKit appear to support the 'week'
type. So I'm considering this result acceptable for now, and this
may be something that will need more WPT tests added in the future.
This is intended to be used by the <input> element 'week' type state
and convert that to milliseconds from the Unix epoch (ignoring leap
seconds).
I am certain there is a much better way of writing this that does
not need a loop, but I am less convinced about writing that without
running into some edge case I didn't consider.
Even though we don't actually make use of these values at the moment,
we still want them to be reflected correctly once we start exposing used
margin values soon.
We were incorrectly shrinking the used right margin to make it fit
within the available space, even though this was not necessary and the
margin is allowed to stretch beyond the containing block.
This is not observable yet, but will be once we start exposing used
margin values in a subsequent change.
