This allows us to retain perfect precision for aspect ratios derived
from either the intrinsic sizes of replaced elements, or the
`aspect-ratio` CSS property.
There's a particularly awkward case where the static position of an
abspos child of a flex container is dependent on its height. This can
happen when `align-items: center` is in effect, as we have to adjust
the abspos child's Y position by half of its height.
This patch solves the issue by reordering operations in the abspos
height resolution algorithm, to make sure that height is resolved
before the static position is calculated.
Before this change, we were creating a new anonymous flex item for every
inline-level child of a flex container, even when we had a sequence of
inline-level children.
The fix here is to simply keep putting things in the last child of the
flex container, if that child is already an anonymous flex item.
In general it is not safe to convert any arbitrary floating-point value
to CSSPixels. CSSPixels has a resolution of 0.015625, which for small
values (e.g. scale factors between 0 and 1), can produce bad results
if converted to CSSPixels then scaled back up. In the worst case values
can underflow to zero and produce incorrect results.
CSS-ALIGN-3 tells us that `normal` behavior inside flex containers is
simply to behave as `stretch` so this patch makes them behave the same
inside FFC.
Furthermore, we change the `align-items` initial value to `normal`,
matching other engines.
This patch just adds the new root paintable and updates the tests
expectations. The next patch will move painting logic from the layout
viewport to the paint viewport.
This stuff is pretty hairy since the specifications don't give any
guidance on which widths to use when calculating the intrinsic height of
flex items in a column layout.
However, our old behavior of "treat anything indefinite as fit-content"
was definitely not good enough, so this patch improves the situation by
considering values like `min-content`, `max-content` and `fit-content`
separately from `auto`, and making the whole flex layout pipeline aware
of them (in the cross axis context).
Properties like min-width, max-width, etc, should be ignored while we're
trying to determine the intrinsic size of a flex container.
This fixes an infinite recursion when using an intrinsic size keyword as
the max-width of a flex column container.
Note that this behavior is marked as AD-HOC in code comments because
specs don't tell us how to achieve intrinsic sizing.
We can now load product pages on the Twinings site, such as
https://twinings.co.uk/products/earl-grey-100-tea-bags :^)
This change makes tree builder omit elements with "display: contents"
from the layout tree during construction. Their child elements are
instead directly appended to the parent element in layout tree.
Auto margins used together with justify-content would previously
result in children being positioned outside their parent. This was
solved by letting auto margins take precedence when they are used,
which was already implemented to some extent before, but not
fully.
Containers with both flex reverse and justify content would
sometimes place children outside the container. This happened
because it assumed any reversed container would have items
aligned to the right, which isn't true when using eg. `flex-end`.
Both `justify-content: start` and `justify-content: end` are now
also independent of the reverseness.
After switching to fixed-point arithmetic in CSSPixels, it no longer
supports representing infinite values, which was previously the case
for remaining_free_space in FFC. Using Optional that is not empty only
when value is finite to store remaining_free_space ensures that
infinity is avoided in layout calculations.
Using fixed-point saturated arithmetics for CSSPixels allows to avoid
accumulating floating-point errors.
This implementation is not complete yet: currently saturated
arithmetics implemented only for addition. But it is enough to not
regress any of layout tests we have :)
See https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/issues/18566
Once we've resolved the used flex item width & height, we should allow
percentage flex item sizes to resolve against them instead of forcing
flex items to always treat percentages as auto while doing intrinsic
sizing layout.
Regressed in 8dd489da61.
We do this by piggybacking on FormattingContext helpers instead of
reinventing the wheel in FlexFormattingContext.
This fixes an issue where `min-width: fit-content` (and other
layout-dependent values) were treated as 0 on flex items.
This makes the cookie banners look okay on https://microsoft.com/ :^)
Make sure the insets and margins calculated according to the spec are
not later ignored and ad-hoc recomputed in
layout_absolutely_positioned_element.
Use the static position calculation in a couple of places where the
spec (and comment) was indicating it should be used.
Fixes#19362
The tests still pass, but opening the files in Ladybird and Safari or
Firefox shows clearly where the layouting in Ladybird is incorrect
for some absolute positioned elements. The previous 1px border was
subtly hiding some issues.
When sizing under a max-content constraint, we allow flex lines to have
an infinite amount of "remaining space", but we shouldn't let infinity
leak into the geometry of items. So treat it as zero in arithmetic.
This fixes an issue where inline SVGs with natural aspect ratio (from
viewBox) but no natural width or height could get an infinite size as
flex items.
The part in FFC where we ask the parent formatting context to size the
flex container midway through layout is really weird, but let's at least
be consistently weird for BFC and IFC. Since IFC always works within its
parent BFC, it can simply forward these requests to the BFC.
This fixes an issue where inline-flex containers incorrectly had main
axis margins subtracted from their content size.
We were incorrectly returning a "specified size suggestion" for flex
items with a definite main size where that main size was also automatic.
This led to us incorrectly choosing 0 as the automatic minimum size for
that flex item, instead of its min-content size.
If a flex item's main size is a CSS calc() value that resolves to a
length and contains a percentage, we can only resolve it when we have
the corresponding reference size for the containing block.
If the flex container is being sized under a max-content main size
constraint, there is effectively infinite space available for flex
items. Thus, flex lines should be allowed to be infinitely long.
This is a little awkward, because the spec doesn't mention specifics
about how to resolve flexible lengths during intrninsic sizing.
I've marked the spec deviations with big "AD-HOC" comments.
Instead of just measuring the layout viewport, we now measure overflow
in every box that is a scroll container.
This has the side effect of no longer creating paintables for layout
boxes that didn't participate in layout. (For example, empty/anonymous
boxes that were ignored by flex itemization.)
Such boxes are now marked as "(not painted)" in the layout tree dumps,
as they have no paintable to dump geometry from.
We were not taking reverse flex directions into account when choosing
the initial offset for flex item placement if justify-content were
either space-around or space-between.
This fixes a plethora of rounding problems on many websites.
In the future, we may want to replace this with fixed-point arithmetic
(bug #18566) for performance (and consistency with other engines),
but in the meantime this makes the web look a bit better. :^)
There's a lot more things that could be converted to doubles, which
would reduce the amount of casting necessary in this patch.
We can do that incrementally, however.
1. Propagate calc() values from StyleProperties to ComputedValues.
2. Actually resolve calc() values when determining the used flex basis.
This makes the "support" section on https://shopify.com/ show up
correctly as a 2x2 grid (instead of 1x4). :^)
If there are min or max size constraints in the cross axis for a flex
item that has a desired aspect ratio, we may need to adjust the main
size *after* applying the cross size constraints.
All the steps to achieving this aren't mentioned in the spec, but it
seems that all other browsers behave this way, so we should too.
If the parent BFC can come up with a nice stretch-fit width for the flex
container, it will have already done so *before* even entering flex
layout. There's no need to do it again, midway through the flex layout
algorithm.
This wasn't just unnecessary, but we were also doing it incorrectly and
not taking margins into account when calculating the amount of available
space for stretch-fit. This led to oversized flex containers in the
presence of negative margins.
Fixes#18614
This patch does three things:
- Factors out the code that determines whether a box will create a new
formatting context for its children (and which type of context)
- Uses that code to mark all formatting context roots in layout tree
dumps. This makes it much easier to follow along with layout since
you can now see exactly where control is transferred to a new
formatting context.
- Rebaselines all existing layout tests, since the output format has
changed slightly.
Although the spec doesn't mention it, if a flex item has box-sizing:
border-box, and the specified size suggestion is a definite size, we
have to subtract the borders and padding from the size before using it.
This fixes an issue seen in "This Week in Ladybird #4" where the
screenshots ended up in one long vertical stack instead of paired up
2 by 2.
