-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 629
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix regression where many blank lines were reported in browse mode #16585
Fix regression where many blank lines were reported in browse mode #16585
Conversation
Moved changelog entry from T2T to Markdown
Hi, |
@cary-rowen - this regression is on alpha, caused by a PR targeting 2024.3. It's not in the 2024.2 code. @SaschaCowley - I assume you are still working on this as the diff appears to be empty, so I've marked this a draft |
Sorry, I misremembered this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for fixing it!
It seems there are still blank lines added from time to time to the virtual document when web pages update content dynamically.E.g. on Github insights page while the time stamps for the issues / PRs are updating. |
Can you open a new issue for this, and if possible provide a concrete repro case? |
I can try to report a concrete case and isolate it as far as possible, it seems it happens only in Firefox. |
Link to issue number:
Fixes #16554
Summary of the issue:
#16471 introduced a regression whereby many blank lines were reported in browse mode.
Description of user facing changes
Extraneous blank lines are no longer reported in browse mode.
Description of development approach
Updated checks in
gecko_ia2.cpp
:name
is non-zero (SysStringLen
returns0
if theBSTR
passed isnull
)description
'svalue
is not the empty string, as checking that it has a value is necessary but not sufficient.Testing strategy:
Tested reading the PR for #16471 as described in #16554. Also tested as described in #16471 to ensure changes did not break the new behaviour.
Known issues with pull request:
N/A
Code Review Checklist: