Add classes ExplicitTrackSizing and MetaGridTrackSize which will allow
for managing properties like auto-fill and minmax.
In the following CSS example there are 3 classes that will be used:
grid-template-column: repeat(auto-fill, minmax(50px, 1fr) 75px);
ExplicitTrackSizing - will contain the entire value. e.g.
repeat(auto-fill, minmax(50px, 1fr) 75px)
With a flag if it's a repeat, as well as references to the
MetaGridTrackSizes which is the next step down.
MetaGridTrackSize:
Contain the individual grid track sizes. Here there are two:
minmax(50px, 1fr) as well as 75px.
This way can keep track if it's a minmax function or not, and the
references to both GridTrackSizes in the case it is, or in just the one
if it is not.
GridTrackSize:
Is the most basic element, in this case there are three in total; two of
which are held by the first MetaGridTrackSize, and the third is held by
the second MetaGridTrackSize.
Examples: 50px, 1fr and 75px.
As it turns out, we sometimes query the intrinsic height of a box before
having fully resolved and/or constrained its containing block. Because
of this, we may enter intrinsic sizing with different amounts of
available width for the same box.
To accommodate this scenario, we now allow caching of multiple intrinsic
heights, separated by the amount of available width provided as input.
This colors a bit outside the lines of the specification, but the spec
doesn't offer a proper explanation for how descendants of a flex item
are supposed to have access to the flex item's main size for purposes
of percentage resolution.
The approach I came up with here was to take the hypothetical main size
of each flex item, and assign it as a temporary main size. This allows
percentage resolution in descendants to work against the pre-flexing
main size of items. This seems to match how other engines behave,
although it feels somewhat dirty. If/when we learn more about this,
we can come up with something nicer.
We were using the available space in place of the stretch-fit size.
This was an oversight, and this patch fixes that. It's very possible
that this will uncover broken behavior elsewhere.
This property tells us how to lay out multi-line flex containers.
I implemented all modes except `space-between` and `space-around`.
Those are left as FIXMEs.
This ensures that we create a line box for content:"", which would
otherwise get pruned by the empty line cleanup in IFC.
The empty line box is important in this case, since it gives us a
reference point for measuring the automatic height of the IFC's
containing block. By having an empty line, we can now correctly measure
the impact of vertical margins on a generated box with content:""
and allow them to contribute to the block height.
When checking if a line box fragment "isn't just dumb inline content",
we were checking "is replaced or inline-block". What we really need to
be checking is "is replaced or inline-outside-but-not-flow-inside".
So now we check that.
This fixes an issue where inline-flex boxes were given incorrect extra
height due to being treated as regular text for purposes of line height
calculation.
Percentage heights are now considered definite when their containing
block has a definite height. This makes profile pictures have geometry
on Twitter. (We still don't load the images themselves though.)
This refactors the solve_for_{top, bottom, height, etc} lambdas to use a
common solve_for lambda that takes the length to be solved as an
argument. This way some code duplication is removed.
This patch implements the full "old model" height algorithm from the
CSS Positioned Layout spec. I went with the old model since we don't
yet have the machinery required to implement the new model.
Also, the width calculations already follow the old model, so this
is symmetric with that. Eventually we should of course implement the new
positioned layout model.
Now that intrinsic heights (correctly) depend on the amount of available
width, we can't just cache the first calculated min-content and
max-content heights and reuse it without thinking.
Instead, we have to cache three pairs:
- min-content & max-content height with definite available width
- min-content & max-content height with min-content available width
- min-content & max-content height with max-content available width
There might be some more elegant way of solving this, but basically this
makes the cache work correctly when someone's containing block is being
sized under a width constraint.
We were incorrectly resolving them against the available width, which
may or may not be the same as the containing block width.
The specification for these properties says that percentages resolve
against the containing block width, so that's what we should do.
When calculating the fit-content width or height for a flex item, we
need to use the available space *outside* the item, not the available
space *inside*.
We now know exactly how to calculate the min-content cross size for
multi-line flex containers, which is great. The other three intrinsic
constraints still fall back to the old ad-hoc code path.
5630e7b064
When the indicated column-span is greater than the implicit grid (like
in cases when the grid has the default size of 1x1, and the column is
supposed to span any number greater than that), then previously were
crashing.
Fixes a bug in the maybe_add_column() implementation of the
OccupationGrid. Previously were checking for the width of the grid based
off of the first row, and so when augmenting the column count row-by-row
the latter rows would have differing column counts.
Also, were doing an unnecessary + 1 which I imagine comes from before
when I wasn't quite clear on whether I was referring to columns by
index or by the css-value of the column (column 1 in the css is
column index 0).
For percentage cross min/max sizes that resolve against indefinite
available space, we now essentially ignore them instead of resolving
them to 0 at the start of layout.
Yet another legacy "is inline-block?" condition was causing us to insert
inline nodes directly as children of inline-flex containers (instead of
wrapping them in anonymous blocks, which would then cause them to become
flex items.)
Ensure that when a grid item is passed with a span and a fixed end
position, that if the resulting start of this item is less than 0 then
it won't throw. This is a temporary measure until the correct
functionality is implemented.
After having corrected the tracking of span variables in the
GridTrackPlacement class, now can fix some small bugs for its correct
implementation in the GridFormattingContext class.
Implement span correctly when indicated in the grid-column-start,
grid-row-start, etc. CSS properties. Previously it had been implemented
as if span was something that went alongside the position property, but
actually it seems like if you do 'span 3' in the grid-column-start
property, for example, this means it literally spans 3 blocks, and the
3 has nothing to do with position.
We were skipping over inline flex containers when looking for an
insertion parent. This made us not generate flex items in those cases.
This commit changes the behavior, so that non-inline-level items can
get inserted into an inline-outside parent, as long as the parent isn't
just flow-inside.
Now that we don't have to deal with the ad-hoc "inline" flag on layout
nodes anymore, we're free to simply obey the inline-outside flag from
the CSS display value when choosing whether to insert as an inline-level
node or not.
Before this, whenever encountering something other than dumb text
content in an inline flow, we assumed it had to be either a replaced
element, or an inline-block.
This removes the special-casing of inline-block so that IFC can size and
layout anything as long as it's inline on the outside.
