Bump eslint-plugin-html from 4.0.6 to 6.1.2 in /webrtc/tools#1
Closed
dependabot[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Closed
Bump eslint-plugin-html from 4.0.6 to 6.1.2 in /webrtc/tools#1dependabot[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
dependabot[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Conversation
Bumps [eslint-plugin-html](https://github.com/BenoitZugmeyer/eslint-plugin-html) from 4.0.6 to 6.1.2. - [Release notes](https://github.com/BenoitZugmeyer/eslint-plugin-html/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/BenoitZugmeyer/eslint-plugin-html/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md) - [Commits](BenoitZugmeyer/eslint-plugin-html@v4.0.6...v6.1.2) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: eslint-plugin-html dependency-type: direct:development update-type: version-update:semver-major ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
AutomatedTester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2021
Relative offsets should be applied after fragmentation. Since we perform layout for OOFs once they reach the fragmentation context root (if applicable), we fail to apply any relative offsets at the correct time in the case of inline containing blocks. See CL:2851595 for how this was handled for the non-inline case. The changes required to accomplish this for inline containing blocks include: 1. We currently store an accumulated relative offset in NGContainingBlock inside the OOF node, which is any relative offset from the containing block to the fragmentation context root. We also need to store an accumulated relative offset from the inline container to the containing block in order to properly apply all relative offsets at the time of fragmentation. A new struct, NGInlineContainer, was added to the OOF node to hold the inline container object and the accumulated relative offset to the containing block. 2. A relative offset was also added to the InlineContainingBlockGeometry struct so that we have access to the relative offset from #1 when creating the ContainingBlockInfo for the inline container. 3. The way that relative offsets are applied to inlines, it didn't seem straightforward to separate the relative offset from the normal offset, like we had in CL:2851595. Instead, store the relative offset for the inline and subtract it out from the OOF static position once it reaches the containing block, and subtract it from the containing block rect offset when determining the ContainingBlockInfo for the inline container. 4. Store the total relative offset (from the inline container to the fragmentation context root) in ContainingBlockInfo. This relative offset will then be applied after fragmentation is complete for the OOF as a result of CL:2851595. Bug: 1079031 Change-Id: I7198fec4c01e05ca54c51b2f215569b75b0b869e Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2995308 Commit-Queue: Alison Maher <almaher@microsoft.com> Reviewed-by: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Koji Ishii <kojii@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#902060}
Author
|
Superseded by #45. |
AutomatedTester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2022
This patch adds a new produceCropId() API to mediaDevices. This API is called with a DIV or IFRAME element, and adds a new base::UnguessableToken value to that element's rare data structure. This token value will be used in followup patches in order to keep track of an element's location in the page and viewport. Based on the following design document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dULARMnMZggfWqa_Ti_GrINRNYXGIli3XK9brzAKEV8/ Bug: 1247761 Change-Id: I01cd67e2d4e3dfa7a86289f876e48c8b55095d0a Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3173396 Commit-Queue: Jordan Bayles <jophba@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Elad Alon <eladalon@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#925544}
AutomatedTester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2022
…eVisibilityKeeper::PrepareToSplitBlockElement()` before splitting a text node It does the following things when caret is collapsed in a text node in a `<p>` or `<div>` element. 1. Split the text node containing caret to insert `<br>` element 2. Insert `<br>` element after it 3. Split ancestor elements which inclusive descendants of the `<p>` or `<div>` 4. Delete the `<br>` element if unnecessary from the left paragraph #3 and #4 are performed by `HTMLEditor::SplitParagraph()` and it calls `WhiteSpaceVisibilityKeeper::PrepareToSplitBlockElement()` correctly before splitting the block. However, in the case (caret is at middle of a text node), the text has already been split to 2 nodes because of #1. Therefore, it fails to handle to keep the white-space visibility. So that I believe that the root cause of this bug is, the method does much complicated things which are required, and doing the redundant things will eat memory space due to undo transactions. However, for now, I'd like to fix this with a simple patch which just call the preparation method before splitting the text node because I'd like to uplift this if it'd be approved (Note that this is not a recent regression, the root cause was created by bug 92686 which was fixed in 17 years ago: <https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/commit/2e66280faef73e9be218e00758d4eb738395ac83>, but must be annoying bug for users who see this frequently). The new WPTs are pass in Chrome. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D130950 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1740416 gecko-commit: 73567f6c2bcfa078836a36760498bb11747561dd gecko-reviewers: m_kato, smaug
AutomatedTester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2022
By adding new exhaustive tests under ordering/, it was revealed that the ordering between navigatesuccess/navigateerror and the committed/finished promises was not always consistent:
1. Simply adding a currentchange event handler would cause microtasks to run during commit, which changed some ordering.
2. Calling transitionWhile() would take us from the zero-promise case to the 1+-promise case in ScriptPromise::All(). As the new comment explains, both the spec and implementation have an observably-different fast path for the 0-promise case which caused changes in ordering.
In the course of fixing this, I found out that the did_finish_before_commit_ code in app_history_api_navigation.{h,cc} was actually not a mitigation for the case it stated, where promises passed to transitionWhile() would settle faster than the browser-process roundtrip for same-document traversals. That is in fact impossible, since we only fire the navigate event after the browser-process roundtrip has completed. Instead, they were a mitigation for (1).
This commit then ensures consistent ordering, tested with new rather-exhaustive tests, in the following manner:
* We move the firing of currentchange to before resolving the committed promise. This eliminates (1) and allows us to delete the did_finish_before_commit_ tracking.
* We always ensure we pass 1+ promises to ScriptPromise::All(). This eliminates (2).
A consequence of this is that we are now more likely to get rejected finished promises, in cases like
await appHistory.navigate("#1").committed;
await appHistory.navigate("#2").committed;
Before, the finished promise for the #1 navigation would go through the fast path per (2), and fulfill before the navigation to #2 canceled it. Now that does not happen, so code like the above will give an unhandled promise rejection for #1's finished promise.
To avoid this, we unconditionally mark finished promises as handled. This follows some web platform precedent, e.g. stream closed promises, where the promise is one of several information channels (in this case the developer might also find out via the AbortSignal or the navigateerror event). We do *not* do this for the committed promise though, as if a commit fails, that's probably something more deeply wrong, and cannot be ignored.
All of these changes will require spec updates.
For the tests, we introduce a new ordering/ directory which contains cross-cutting ordering tests, and we consolidate a few tests into the newly-introduced variant-driven exhaustive ones. A couple of other tests were affected by these changes too or fixed as a drive-by.
Change-Id: I8a50ca28d009e0a8a2c94331cd17f29b0a8dc463
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3405377
Reviewed-by: Nate Chapin <japhet@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Domenic Denicola <domenic@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#963772}
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bumps eslint-plugin-html from 4.0.6 to 6.1.2.
Changelog
Sourced from eslint-plugin-html's changelog.
Commits
54c6e946.1.26f1e950chore: update changelog2094b48build: bump htmlparser2 in package.json43ad129Merge pull request #143 from BenoitZugmeyer/update-htmlparser2bdc76d9build: upgrade htmlparser27f4b3b3Merge pull request #142 from BenoitZugmeyer/upgrade-dependenciesa3b151fbuild: upgrade dependencies0005010Merge pull request #140 from KarelVerschraegen/patch-19ee87b4Update README.md4e205cf6.1.1Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
@dependabot rebase.Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)