Skip to content
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

layout: Allow non-absolutely-positioned elements with `overflow: scroll` set to be scrolled. #10450

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 7, 2016

Conversation

@pcwalton
Copy link
Contributor

pcwalton commented Apr 7, 2016

This makes them establish stacking contexts, which is a CSS 2.1 spec
violation. However, we were already violating the spec here for
absolutely-positioned elements with overflow: scroll. It will probably
be easier to fix this spec violation once we either switch entirely to
WebRender or we have multiple layers per stacking context.

r? @mbrubeck


This change is Reviewable

set to be scrolled.

This makes them establish stacking contexts, which is a CSS 2.1 spec
violation. However, we were already violating the spec here for
absolutely-positioned elements with `overflow: scroll`. It will probably
be easier to fix this spec violation once we either switch entirely to
WebRender or we have multiple layers per stacking context.

Closes #2742.
@highfive

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

highfive commented Apr 7, 2016

warning Warning warning

  • These commits modify gfx and layout code, but no tests are modified. Please consider adding a test!
@pcwalton

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

pcwalton commented Apr 7, 2016

Closes #2742.

@mbrubeck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

mbrubeck commented Apr 7, 2016

@bors-servo r+


Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved, some commit checks failed.


Comments from Reviewable

@bors-servo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 7, 2016

📌 Commit 3518472 has been approved by mbrubeck

@bors-servo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 7, 2016

⌛️ Testing commit 3518472 with merge e66e437...

bors-servo added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2016
…ubeck

layout: Allow non-absolutely-positioned elements with `overflow: scroll` set to be scrolled.

This makes them establish stacking contexts, which is a CSS 2.1 spec
violation. However, we were already violating the spec here for
absolutely-positioned elements with `overflow: scroll`. It will probably
be easier to fix this spec violation once we either switch entirely to
WebRender or we have multiple layers per stacking context.

r? @mbrubeck

<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="35" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/10450)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
@bors-servo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 7, 2016

💔 Test failed - linux-rel

@pcwalton

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

pcwalton commented Apr 7, 2016

Weird infrastructurey looking failure. @larsbergstrom?

@larsbergstrom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

larsbergstrom commented Apr 7, 2016

@bors-servo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 7, 2016

⚡️ Previous build results for android, arm32, arm64, linux-dev, mac-dev-unit, mac-rel-css, mac-rel-wpt are reusable. Rebuilding only linux-rel...

@bors-servo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 7, 2016

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 3518472 into servo:master Apr 7, 2016
2 of 3 checks passed
2 of 3 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build failed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@paulrouget

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

paulrouget commented Apr 12, 2016

@pcwalton is that supposed to fix #10434 ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.