Bug: Glyph bbox was incorrect in the Firefox dev console

[tchapeaux]

Bug description

When using FontAwesome v6 with Firefox (118), I'm seeing many warnings about FontAwesome glyphs in the console.

For example:

downloadable font: Glyph bbox was incorrect (glyph ids 5 9 10 12 13 15 16 33 49 59 60 61 72 76 81 83 84 85 88 91 92 97 101 102 103 104 106 107 109 118 120 121 122 124 134 135 136 137 139 141 143 145 146) (font-family: "Font Awesome 6 Pro" style:normal weight:300 stretch:100 src index:0) source: https://ka-p.fontawesome.com/releases/v6.4.2/webfonts/pro-fa-light-300-18.woff2

According to this ticket in Firefox's bug tracker, this is not an issue with Firefox, but an actual bug in FontAwesome font definition.

Reproducible test case

https://codepen.io/Thomas-Chapeaux/pen/gOZdpMV

Screenshots

Font Awesome version

v6.4.2

Serving

Kit

Implementation

CSS

Browser and Operating System

• Firefox Developer Edition (119.0b3)
• Firefox (v118)

Web bug report checklist

• I have included a test case because my odds go way up that the team can fix this when I do
• I have searched for existing issues and to the best of my knowledge this is not a duplicate

[ve3]

Confirm bug happens on Firefox (tested with 118.0.1) but not on Chrome (tested with 117.0.59.xxx).

[sensibleworld]

Thanks, folks. We've heard this report from a few folks. ​It looks like the Firefox team introduced a new tolerance check in their recent build. There are some glyphs that extend slightly beyond the bbox area (this is related to how curves are sometimes drawn differently between OTFs, TTFs, WOFFs, SVGs, etc). The good news is that there should be no issue with the icons from a visual standpoint (the cropping is so minute, that it's imperceptible for the most part).
​
​We're going to work on a fix on our end, but there should be no issue with continuing to use the typeface... it'll continue to display as normal.
​

[TheJaredWilcurt]

@sensibleworld This is also occurring in v4.

Can we get a fix there too and a bump to 4.7.1 for the npm package? npm's stats show over 2 million downloads of 4.7.0 in the past 7 days.

[tagliala]

v4 is in EOL and that npm package is not official. You can try to get in touch with the author

[Zahen]

Same warning with :

• Firefox Dev v119.0b5 (64 bits)
• @fortawesome/fontawesome-free v6.3.0
• mdb-angular-ui-kit v4.10
• Angular v15.2.4

[TheJaredWilcurt]

Unfortunately the GitHub repo that published the npm package does not have an issues page to report this.

• https://github.com/juliankrispel/Font-Awesome

Unless @juliankrispel sees this and is willing to modify the font files and do a new release, I'm guessing those contributing to the 2 million+ downloads a week will need to either live with the warning, or switch to something else that is maintained.

[epugh]

I use https://github.com/FortAwesome/font-awesome-sass and am seeing the same issue.

[baguaboy758]

Same with font awesome pro 6 (latest) and subsetter compiles

[hexkey]

Bump :)

[Lemmings19]

+1

[gustavocardoso]

Bump!!!

[melroy89]

This is a feature not a bug 🐛 .

[mlwilkerson]

The fix has been completed and will appear in a forthcoming release of Font Awesome. The fix will be present in the official fonts for that forthcoming release, as well as fonts built when downloading or subsetting kits from fontawesome.com.

[hexkey]

Awesome, thank you.

[RolandMarchand]

Wonderful, greatly appreciated.

[akimd]

Great news.

[ingodwetryst]

The fix has been completed and will appear in a forthcoming release of Font Awesome. The fix will be present in the official fonts for that forthcoming release, as well as fonts built when downloading or subsetting kits from fontawesome.com.

Has that happened yet? If not, do we have an ETA? Thanks!

[cadeyrn]

Has that happened yet? If not, do we have an ETA? Thanks!

Yes, it's fixed in Font Awesome 6.5.

[winternet-studio]

What about fixing this in version 5 which is an LTS that should still receive patch releases?

[joshmckibbin]

What about fixing this in version 5 which is an LTS that should still receive patch releases?

Not sure this qualifies as a "critical bug fix", at least not yet.