-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
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
Make the script thread conform to "the event loop processing model" #19242
Labels
A-content/script
Related to the script thread
Comments
4 tasks
4 tasks
mrobinson
added a commit
to mrobinson/servo
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2020
This is a small step toward fixing servo#19242. The main idea is that the clock for animations should advance as the event loop ticks. We accomplish this by moving the clock from layout and naming it the "animation timeline" which is the spec language. This should fix flakiness with animations and transitions tests where a reflow could move animations forward while script was running. This change also starts to break out transition and animation events into their own data structure, because it's quite likely that the next step in fixing servo#19242 is to no longer send these events through a channel.
mrobinson
added a commit
to mrobinson/servo
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2020
This is a small step toward fixing servo#19242. The main idea is that the clock for animations should advance as the event loop ticks. We accomplish this by moving the clock from layout and naming it the "animation timeline" which is the spec language. This should fix flakiness with animations and transitions tests where a reflow could move animations forward while script was running. This change also starts to break out transition and animation events into their own data structure, because it's quite likely that the next step in fixing servo#19242 is to no longer send these events through a channel.
mrobinson
added a commit
to mrobinson/servo
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2020
This is a small step toward fixing servo#19242. The main idea is that the clock for animations should advance as the event loop ticks. We accomplish this by moving the clock from layout and naming it the "animation timeline" which is the spec language. This should fix flakiness with animations and transitions tests where a reflow could move animations forward while script was running. This change also starts to break out transition and animation events into their own data structure, because it's quite likely that the next step in fixing servo#19242 is to no longer send these events through a channel.
mrobinson
added a commit
to mrobinson/servo
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2020
This is a small step toward fixing servo#19242. The main idea is that the clock for animations should advance as the event loop ticks. We accomplish this by moving the clock from layout and naming it the "animation timeline" which is the spec language. This should fix flakiness with animations and transitions tests where a reflow could move animations forward while script was running. This change also starts to break out transition and animation events into their own data structure, because it's quite likely that the next step in fixing servo#19242 is to no longer send these events through a channel.
mrobinson
added a commit
to mrobinson/servo
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2020
This is a small step toward fixing servo#19242. The main idea is that the clock for animations should advance as the event loop ticks. We accomplish this by moving the clock from layout and naming it the "animation timeline" which is the spec language. This should fix flakiness with animations and transitions tests where a reflow could move animations forward while script was running. This change also starts to break out transition and animation events into their own data structure, because it's quite likely that the next step in fixing servo#19242 is to no longer send these events through a channel.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
#18611 is an attempt to make our implementation match what is written in the spec. There is still an unexpected test failure that requires investigation (as well as rebasing and running all of the new tests since then).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: