[css-flexbox] Add tests for intrinsic sizing behavior #5791
Conversation
Firefox (nightly channel)Testing web-platform-tests at revision ab968bc All results2 tests ran/css/css-flexbox-1/intrinsic-height-000.html
/css/css-flexbox-1/intrinsic-width-000.html
|
Chrome (unstable channel)Testing web-platform-tests at revision ab968bc All results2 tests ran/css/css-flexbox-1/intrinsic-height-000.html
/css/css-flexbox-1/intrinsic-width-000.html
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5791 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 87.22%
=========================================
Files ? 24
Lines ? 2418
Branches ? 406
=========================================
Hits ? 2109
Misses ? 240
Partials ? 69Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Notifying owners who are not repo collaborators: @atanassov and @chenxix. |
|
@dholbert - Can you look at this? It seems that no one is marked as an owner for this directory; it would be useful if people who can review flexbox tests were added to an |
|
Erm, sorry, I got that wrong. There are no OWNERs here who are able to merge PRs. If someone is going to take responsibility for landing PRs here we should set you up with push access; please join #testing on irc.w3.org and we can sort something out. |
|
@cbiesinger , sorry for the delay - I've been largely AFK for the past couple weeks. (Just got married, and then was on honeymoon. \o/ ) Looking at intrinsic-height-000.html and its reference: it intuitively makes sense, but I'm not sure how it corresponds to the spec text. (This might be an indication that the spec needs an adjustment, not the testcase -- but that probably needs to happen [or I need to correct my spec understanding] before this lands.) In particular: you're testing section 9.9.1, but really that relies on 9.9.3 ("Flex Item Intrinsic Size Contributions") to define what the max-content contribution is for each flex item. And in this case, I believe 9.9.3 says the max-content height contribution is ZERO for each flex item. Specifically: it says the contribution is the max-content size of the item (which is zero since there's no content and no specified height), and clamped by the flex-basis in some cases, but not in this case because the item has nonzero flex-grow and flex-shrink. So when we apply 9.9.1 "subtract its outer flex base size from its max-content contribution size", I think we're subtracting the flex base sizes from zero, and then we end up using the flex-shrink factor below that, because we end up with a negative value. (0 - 200px and 0 - 100px) With that, I think the spec ends up with an intrinsic height of zero for the flex container (with zero being contributed by each flex items), after I follow all the steps in 9.9.1 -- NOT 600px/200px/400px as your testcase expects. Let me know if I'm just misunderstanding the spec somehow, though, and how you see it arriving at the values in your testcase. (In particular, is there any spec text that says the "max-content size" of each item is nonzero here? If there was [or if 9.9.1 had each item contributing something nonzero one way or another], then your testcase's expectations would make more sense.) |
|
BTW: I filed w3c/csswg-drafts#1435 to clarify whether I'm correctly interpreting the spec & the spec authors' intentions here. |
|
Yeah, hm. I think you're right. Let's wait for the outcome of that spec issue. |
|
w3c-test:mirror |
|
(By the way, @dholbert, congratulations on getting married! Hope you had a great honeymoon!) |
|
w3c-test:mirror |
|
@gsnedders is there a status that states it's waiting on the spec changes to be completed, the decision was reached and width/height should be taken into account but not the |
|
If there's an agreement then we should just test for that and treat the spec being wrong as a bug, because we don't expect anyone to implement the spec without the resolution applied. |
Taking over #5281 and fixing the issue pointed out by dholbert