Anonymous wrapper boxes inherit style from their layout tree parent,
and since style data is per-layout-node, we have to manually sync them
from parent to anonymous children when something changes.
This is not very elegant or efficient, so I've left a FIXME about
solving it in a nicer way.
This fixes horizontal dog alignment on https://waffles.dog/ :^)
As it turns out, Layout::TreeBuilder never managed to wrap text within
table boxes in anonymous wrapper boxes, since it relied on checking
text_for_rendering(), and that was never initialized during that early
stage of tree building.
This patch fixes the issue by making text_for_rendering() compute the
(potentially collapsed) text lazily when called.
Note that the test included with this patch is still totally wrong,
but that is now a TFC problem rather than a TreeBuilder problem. :^)
Computing the table width algorithm bifurcates based on whether
table-root width is auto. We only adjust the used table width based on
cell percentage widths on the auto branch, thus the same check is needed
when we initialize cell widths.
Cell percentage widths are relative to table width, not containing
block width. If the table width is auto, there isn't a normative
specification, only a brief mention that the user agent should try to
meet it.
As a starting point, we increase the width of the table such that it's
sufficient to cover min-width of cells with a percentage width. This
matches the behavior of other browsers, at least for simple cases.
This ensures that min-content contributions from cells with no content
are computed using their calculated values, which are never considered
for min-content before then. The specification diverges from column
measures algorithm, which doesn't use specified width of cells anywhere.
The CSS box-shadow property takes 2-4 properties that are `<length>`s,
those being:
- offset-x
- offset-y
- blur-radius
- spread-radius
Previously these were resolved directly to concrete Lengths at parse
time, but now they will be parsed as LengthStyleValues and/or
CalculatedStyleValues and be stored that way until styles are later
resolved.
The used width is already a content width, which doesn't include
borders. Border widths should be subtracted from the specified width
instead, since that initially specifies the total width including
borders, for consistent comparison. Also handle table box padding as an
additional fix.
On style update, we have to preserve the invariant established when we
built the layout tree - some properties are applied to the table wrapper
and the table box values are reset to their initial values.
This also ensures that the containing block of a table box is always a
table wrapper, which isn't the case if we set absolute position on the
box instead of the wrapper.
Fixes#19452.
This fixes the issue when size of abspos items is considered to be
resolvable without performing layout which is not correct in the
scenarious when top/right/bottom/left properties are not auto.
Instead of a custom struct, use an AK::Variant for flex-basis.
A flex-basis is either `content` or a CSS size value, so we don't need
anything custom for that.
By using a CSS size, we also avoid having to convert in and out of size
in various places, simplifying the code.
This finally gets rid of the "Unsupported main size for flex-basis"
debug spam. :^)
Adding undistributable space right before setting the content width is
incorrect when it's a percentage. Follow the specification and add it to
GRIDMIN and GRIDMAX instead.
In particular, in BFC:
- Non-floating, non-replaced elements
- Floating, non-replaced elements
- Floating, replaced elements
The first two regressed in 1d76126abe
The third one seems to have been introduced by this regression, as it
was seemingly copied from compute_width_for_floating_box in
7f9ede07bc
The shortcut we put in place didn't resolve percentage widths and
ignored border spacing. We can still return early after we compute the
width per the specifications.
While CSS 2.2 does tell us to use the "auto height for BFC roots"
calculation when resolving auto heights for abspos elements, that
doesn't make sense for other formatting context roots, e.g flex.
In lieu of implementing the entire new absolute positioning model from
CSS-POSITION-3, this patch borrows one small nugget from it: using
fit-content height as the auto height for non-BFC-root abspos elements.
When embedding an SVG in an img element, if the external SVG's root
element has both width and height attributes, but no viewBox attribute,
we now create a fallback viewBox with "0 0 width height".
This appears to match the behavior of other browsers. Inspired by
discussion on Mozilla's bug tracker:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=614649
Compute the contributions to a spanning cell width from each cell in the
span. This better handles uneven column widths, since each cell
contribution is proportional with its own width as opposed to the own
width of the first cell in the span.
This better matches the behavior of other browsers and further aligns
with the specification.
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.
With multi-line text cells, we don't reliably know the height would stay
the same as the one set by the independent format context run. In such
situations, we can end up with a table box which is sized inconsistently
with the grid boxes of the table due to differences in line breaks.
In compute_table_box_width_inside_table_wrapper, we should only consider
available_width when it's valid. Values which come from {min,
max}-content constraints aren't meaningful and shouldn't be considered
for the cap.
Absolutely positioned elements should have their percentage sizes
resolved against the padding box of the containing block, not the
content box.
From CSS-POSITION-3 <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-position-3/#def-cb>
"..the containing block is formed by the padding edge of the ancestor.."
When resolving a percentage min-width or min-height size against a
containing block currently under a min-content constraint, we should act
as if the containing block has zero size in that axis.
This is technically "undefined behavior" per CSS 2.2, but it seems
sensible to mirror the behavior of max-height in the same situation.
It also appears to match how other engines behave.
Fixes#19242
The margin from the containing blocks shouldn't be included in the
amount by which we increment x after a float was places. That coordinate
should be relative to the containing block.
Fixes the comments layout on https://lobste.rs.
The spec says the result of this algorithm is undefined in such cases,
and it appears that other engines yield a zero size.
More importantly, this prevents us from leaking a non-finite value into
the layout tree.
