This change moves intrinsic sizes cache from
LayoutState, which is local to current layout run,
to layout nodes, so it could be reused between
layout runs. This optimization is possible because
we can guarantee that these measurements will
remain unchanged unless the style of the element
or any of its descendants changes.
For now, invalidation is implemented simply by
resetting cache on whole ancestors chain once we
figured that element needs layout update.
The case when layout is invalidated by DOM's
structural changes is covered by layout tree
invalidation that drops intrinsic sizes cache
along with layout nodes.
I measured improvement on couple websites:
- Mail list on GMail 28ms -> 6ms
- GitHub large code page 47ms -> 36ms
- Discord chat history 15ms -> 8ms
(Time does not include `commit()`)
We don't need to perform inside layout of flex and grid formatting
contexts when one of their ancestors is undergoing intrinsic size
measurement. This is because the parent formatting context will have
already sized the flex/grid container, and thus inside layout is
completely redundant work.
We already have a check to skip the layout of descendants if the
available size is intrinsic, but this is not sufficient in nested
intrinsic layout cases, where the available size might be definite even
though we are in intrinsic layout mode.
We already have a check to skip the layout of descendants if the
available size is intrinsic, but this is not sufficient in nested
intrinsic layout cases, where the available size might be definite even
though we are in intrinsic layout mode.
Before this change, an element masked with 'mask-image: url(...)' would
show the mask, but 'mask: url(...)' would not. On e.g. dialogic.nl it
would show white boxes instead of the actual images in the top
navigation bar. We still do not support many of the other mask
properties, but with this change at least the masks show up in both
cases.
Before this change, we were always processing all row groups first,
and then all rows. This led to incorrect table layouts when rows and row
groups were encountered in anything but that order.
This essentially reverts 1b46a52cfc
and adds more tests.
The reverted change was an incorrect workaround for the real issue,
which was that we weren't creating anonymous wrapper boxes around inline
children of table-cell boxes.
Now that this has been fixed, we can go back to aligning text properly.
This fixes an issue where CSS vertical-align on a table-cell box would
incorrectly apply to both the table-cell box and any inline content it
had inside.
This reduces the number of `.cpp` files that need to be recompiled when
one of the below header files changes as follows:
CSS/ComputedProperties.h: 1113 -> 49
CSS/ComputedValues.h: 1120 -> 209
This reduces the number of `.cpp` files that need to be recompiled when
one of the below header files changes as follows:
Painting/Command.h: 1030 -> 61
Painting/DisplayList.h: 1030 -> 60
Painting/DisplayListRecorder.h: 557 -> 59
Even though we don't actually make use of these values at the moment,
we still want them to be reflected correctly once we start exposing used
margin values soon.
We were incorrectly shrinking the used right margin to make it fit
within the available space, even though this was not necessary and the
margin is allowed to stretch beyond the containing block.
This is not observable yet, but will be once we start exposing used
margin values in a subsequent change.
By the time we're measuring the height of a BFC root, we've already
collapsed all relevant margins for the root and its descendants.
Given this, we should simply use 0 (relative to the BFC root) as the
lowest block axis coordinate (i.e Y value) for the margin edges.
This fixes a long-standing issue where BFC roots were sometimes not tall
enough to contain their children due to margins.
This fixes an issue where `vertical-align: middle` would incorrectly
shift the text away from the natural alphabetic baseline.
Fixing this makes many WPT table tests work correctly, so I'm also
importing one of them here. :^)
Having one big `if` to determine whether or not we should restructure an
inline layout node became a bit unwieldy. This extracts the logic into a
separate method.
When restructuring inline nodes because of a block element insertion
during the layout tree build, we might end up with a `display: contents`
element in the ancestor stack that is not part of the actual layout
tree, since it's never actually used as a parent for any node. Because
we were only rewinding the ancestor stack with actual new layout nodes,
it became corrupted and layout nodes were added to the wrong parent.
This new logic leaves the ancestor stack intact, only replacing layout
nodes whenever a new one is created.
Fixes the sidebar on https://reddit.com.
Fixes#3590.
When drawing a table, some of the CSS properties must be moved from the
table grid box to an anonamyous table wrapper box. One of these
properties is `position`. `z-index` however is not. This leads to the
following behavior if a table has both `position` and `z-index`:
* The wrapper box has the `position`, but a `z-index` of `auto`.
* The grid box has the `z-index`, but `position: static`.
This effectively means that the `z-index property is ignored since it
has no effect on non-positioned elements. This behavior contradicts what
other browsers do and causes layout issues on websites.
To align Ladybird behavior with other browser this commit also moves the
`z-index` property to the wrapper box.
This was an old hack intended to make percentage sizes on flex items
before we had implemented the appropriate special behavior of definite
sizes in flex layout.
Removing it makes flex layout less magical and should not change
behavior in any observable way.
The spec tells us to treat `auto` as `fit-content` when determining
flex item cross sizes, so let's just do *that* instead of awkwardly
doing an uncacheable nested layout of the item.
This was the only instance of `LayoutState` nesting outside of intrinsic
sizing, so removing it is an important step towards simplifying layout.
Turns out it was a lot easier than expected.
We've long claimed to support this, but then silently ignored string
values, until 4cb2063577 which would
not-so-silently crash instead. (Oops)
So, actually pass the string value along and use it in the list marker.
As part of this, rename our `list-style-type` enum to
`counter-style-name-keyword`. This is an awkward name, attempting to be
spec-based. (The spec says `<counter-style>`, which is either a
`<counter-style-name>` or a function, and the `<counter-style-name>` is
a `<custom-ident>` that also has a few predefined values. So this is the
best I could come up with.)
Unfortunately only one WPT test for this passes - the others fail
because we produce a different layout when text is in `::before` than
when it's in `::marker`, and similar issues.
This was an old hack from before we understood how and when to resolve
percentages in flex layout. Removing it should not change anything,
but it does avoid a lot of redundant layout work on many pages.
At computed-value time, this is converted to whatever the parent's
computed value is. So it behaves a little like `inherit`, except that
an inherited start/end value uses the parent's start/end, which might
be different from the child's.
We've historically asserted that no "saturated" size values end up as
final metrics for boxes in layout. This always had a chance of producing
false positives, since you can trivially create extremely large boxes
with CSS.
The reason we had those assertions was to catch bugs in our own engine
code where we'd incorrectly end up with non-finite values in layout
algorithms. At this point, we've found and fixed all known bugs of that
nature, and what remains are a bunch of false positives on pages that
create very large scrollable areas, iframes etc.
So, let's change it! We now clamp content width and height of boxes to
17895700 pixels, apparently the same cap as Firefox uses.
There's also the issue of calc() being able to produce non-finite
values. Note that we don't clamp the result of calc() directly, but
instead just clamp values when assigning them to content sizes.
Fixes#645.
Fixes#1236.
Fixes#1249.
Fixes#1908.
Fixes#3057.
While keyword_to_foo() does return Optional<Foo>, in practice the
invalid keywords get rejected at parse-time, so we don't have to worry
about them here. This simplifies the user code quite a bit.
This fixes the very, _very_ slow loading of https://yzy-sply.com. The
`apply_style()` method also calls into this method recursively, so we
just need to call it once instead of once per node in the continuation
chain.
This was mainly a matter of deferring the wrapping of the button's
children until after its internal layout tree has been constructed.
That way we don't lose any pseudo elements spawned along the way.
Fixes#2397.
Fixes#2399.
To be properly compatible with calc(), the resolved() methods all need:
- A length resolution context
- To return an Optional, as the calculation might not be resolvable
A bonus of this is that we can get rid of the overloads of `resolved()`
as they now all behave the same way.
A downside is a scattering of `value_or()` wherever these are used. It
might be the case that all unresolvable calculations have been rejected
before this point, but I'm not confident, and so I'll leave it like
this for now.
Initially I added this to the existing CalculationContext, but in
reality, we have some data at parse-time and different data at
resolve-time, so it made more sense to keep those separate.
Instead of needing a variety of methods for resolving a Foo, depending
on whether we have a Layout::Node available, or a percentage basis, or
a length resolution context... put those in a
CalculationResolutionContext, and just pass that one thing to these
methods. This also removes the need for separate resolve_*_percentage()
methods, because we can just pass the percentage basis in to the regular
resolve_foo() method.
This also corrects the issue that *any* calculation may need to resolve
lengths, but we previously only passed a length resolution context to
specific types in some situations. Now, they can all have one available,
though it's up to the caller to provide it.
BFC roots behave differently in that their height is computed twice,
before and after inside layout, since automatic height depends on the
results of inside layout. Other formatting contexts only require the
"before" pass, and so we can treat their content sizes as definite
before proceeding with inside layout.
This makes https://play.tailwind.com/ look beautiful. :^)
