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.
Per SVG2, any coordinate pairs following a moveto command should be
treated as implicit lineto commands with the same absoluteness as the
moveto command.
This attribute is used to define how the viewBox should be scaled.
Previously the behaviour implemented was that of "xMidYMid meet", now
all of them work (expect none :P).
With this the Discord login backend is now correctly scaled/positioned.
This also brings our SVG code a little closer to the spec! With spec
comments and all :^)
(Minor non-visible update to layout tests)
When sizing a flex container with flex-direction:column under a
max-content height constraint, we were incorrectly truncating the
infinite available height to 0 when collecting flex items into lines.
This caused us to put every flex item in its own flex line, which is the
complete opposite of what we want during max-content intrinsic sizing,
as the layout would grow wide but not tall.
This isn't actually part of CSS-FLEXBOX-1, but all major engines honor
these properties in flex layout, and it's widely used on the web.
There's a bug open against the flexbox spec where fantasai says the
algorithm will be updated in CSS-FLEXBOX-2:
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2336
I've added comments to all the places where we adjust calculations for
gaps with "CSS-FLEXBOX-2" so we can find them easily. When that spec
becomes available, we can add proper spec links.
VALUES-4 defines the internal representation of `calc()` as a tree of
calculation nodes. ( https://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-4/#calc-internal )
VALUES-3 lacked any definition here, so we had our own ad-hoc
implementation based around the spec grammar. This commit replaces that
with CalculationNodes representing each possible node in the tree.
There are no intended functional changes, though we do now support
nested calc() which previously did not work. For example:
`width: calc( 42 * calc(3 + 7) );`
I have added an example of this to our test page.
A couple of the layout tests that used `calc()` now return values that
are 0.5px different from before. There's no visual difference, so I
have updated the tests to use the new results.
Now that these are kind of working, lets add a layout test to prevent
future regressions :^)
This test is the same as the previous example (it is copied, though
that seems to have been done for other tests, e.g. Acid 1).
Grid and flex containers have their own rules for abspos items, so we
shouldn't try to be clever and put them in the "current" anonymous
wrapper block. That behavior is primarily for the benefit of block &
inline layout.
When calculating the intrinsic width of a block-level box, we now ignore
the preferred width entirely, and not just when the preferred width
should be treated as auto.
The condition for this was both confused and wrong, as it looked at the
available width around the box, but didn't check for a width constraint
on the box itself.
Just because the available width has an intrinsic sizing constraint
doesn't mean that the box is undergoing intrinsic sizing. It could also
be the box's containing block!
Due to CSSImportRule::has_import_result() being backwards, we never
actually entered imported style sheets when traversing style rules or
media queries.
With this fixed, we no longer need the "collect style sheets" step in
StyleComputer, as normal for_each_effective_style_rule() will now
actually find all the rules. :^)
In situations where we need a width to calculate the intrinsic height of
a flex item, we use the fit-content width as a stand-in. However, we
also need to clamp it to any min-width and max-width properties present.
In `flex-direction: column` layouts, a flex item's intrinsic height may
depend on its width, but the width is calculated *after* the intrinsic
height is required.
Unfortunately, the specification doesn't tell us exactly what to do here
(missing inputs to intrinsic sizing is a common problem) so we take the
solution that flexbox applies in 9.2.3.C and apply it to all intrinsic
height calculations within FlexFormattingContext: if the used width of
an item is not yet known when its intrinsic height is requested, we
substitute the fit-content width instead.
Note that while this is technically ad-hoc, it's basically extrapolating
the spec's suggestion in one specific case and using it in all cases.
If the previous sibling of an out-of-flow box has been wrapped in an
anonymous block, we now stuff the out-of-flow box into the anonymous
block as well.
Co-authored-by: Aliaksandr Kalenik <kalenik.aliaksandr@gmail.com>
This builds on the existing ad-hoc ResourceLoader code for HTTP fetches
which works for files as well.
This also includes a test that checks that stylesheets loaded with the
"file" URL scheme actually work.
This would previously assert in InlineFormattingContext because we had
an outwardly inline box that wasn't inwardly flow.
Fix this by converting text-based input boxes to inline-blocks. This is
an ad-hoc solution, and there might be a much better way to solve it.
Before this change `apply_clip_overflow_rect` might crash trying to
access `clip_rect` that does not have value because we currently
support calculation of visible rectangle when `overflow: hidden`
is applied for both axis.
This fixes an issue where e.g `height: 100%` on a flex item whose
container has indefinite height was being resolved to 0. It now
correctly behaves the same as auto.
Previously, when having inline contexts consisting of just a `<br/>`
tag, we would not create a line box.
Ensure that there is always a line box when a line is explicitly being
broken and also ensure it won't be trimmed due to being empty.
This will a fix a number of sites that use `<br>` tags for layouts
between block elements (even though the spec says they shouldn't).
The image made the test flaky when running on my machine, so this
doesn't seem safe at the moment. We can just hardcode the dimensions.
Eventually we should make it possible to use external images in tests,
but for now let's not flake up the CI.
According to CSS Inline Layout Module Level 3 § 2.2 Step 1. atomic
inlines should be layed out in a line box based on their margin box.
However, up until this patch we were unconditionally considering only
the border box during line box height calculation. This made us
essentially drop all vertical margins for atomic inlines.
Similar to POSIX read, the basic read and write functions of AK::Stream
do not have a lower limit of how much data they read or write (apart
from "none at all").
Rename the functions to "read some [data]" and "write some [data]" (with
"data" being omitted, since everything here is reading and writing data)
to make them sufficiently distinct from the functions that ensure to
use the entire buffer (which should be the go-to function for most
usages).
No functional changes, just a lot of new FIXMEs.
Percentage line-height values are relative to 1em (i.e the font-size
of the element). We have to resolve their computed values before
proceeding with inheritance.
