!wKNaTuhRJSXtjUVpfk:matrix.org

web-platform-tests

228 Members
The web-platform-tests testsuite and infrastructure - https://web-platform-tests.org10 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
20 Feb 2024
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: Hm? What security implication? 10:23:50
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: the test is failing in chrome because it's parsing :grammar-error even though it's not valid CSS syntax 10:24:07
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam RosenthalSomething about not using this to find out if there is a particular highlight?10:24:27
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: the security implication is that you have to return the style as if there was a highlight, but the test reflects that 10:25:29
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: But it seems that the issue is that chrome is just not rejecting the single-colon syntax as per spec (https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom/#dom-window-getcomputedstyle step 3) 10:27:03
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilioOr am I missing something?10:27:32
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: annevk: I think Firefox is right unless I'm missing something obvious 10:38:40
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal
In reply to @emilio:mozilla.org
Noam Rosenthal: But it seems that the issue is that chrome is just not rejecting the single-colon syntax as per spec (https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom/#dom-window-getcomputedstyle step 3)
I’m working on the test and locally only those two fail after fixing the other ones
10:44:45
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal They fail because we don’t create a UA shadow DOM which means there is no placeholder pseudo 10:45:29
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: I think that's wrong. You still return e.g. a ::marker style even if there's no marker, a ::before style even if there's no ::before, right? 10:46:47
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilioThough you're right the spec isn't super clear about "when pseudo-elements are supposed to exist"10:47:40
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilioWhat Gecko does is resolve the style anyways, the same way you do for every other pseudo10:48:05
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal
In reply to @emilio:mozilla.org
Noam Rosenthal: I think that's wrong. You still return e.g. a ::marker style even if there's no marker, a ::before style even if there's no ::before, right?
It’s ambiguous in the spec. We discussed it in the csswg in the context of ::view-transition pseudos
10:48:48
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: still the firefox behavior seems more consistent on how we deal with e.g. ::marker 10:49:26
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal
In reply to @emilio:mozilla.org
Noam Rosenthal: still the firefox behavior seems more consistent on how we deal with e.g. ::marker
Someone said in the WG that marker was like this so that we don’t make the existence of the marker web observable
10:50:13
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: you could argue that if you don't return a style for ::file-selector-button if you're not an <input type=file>, you shouldn't return a style for ::marker if you're not a list item 10:50:16
@emilio:mozilla.orgemiliohm? The existence of the marker is observable by querying used-value properties like width10:50:50
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal
In reply to @emilio:mozilla.org
Noam Rosenthal: you could argue that if you don't return a style for ::file-selector-button if you're not an <input type=file>, you shouldn't return a style for ::marker if you're not a list item
That’s fair but needs to be in the spec IMO
10:51:02
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio e.g., a marker that exists would resolve width: auto to a pixel value 10:51:08
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilioI'd file a spec issue and discuss it in the WG first before changing the test, I don't see why ::file-selector-button or ::placeholder would be special but...10:52:49
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal emilio: the initial context was this CSSWG resolution: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9880#issuecomment-1939408219 which I now think was wrong. 10:57:47
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal emilio: the question there was should we match the pseudo-element when there is no view-transition, or no view-transition with the given name. We resolved that it should match an actual VT object (which sorta aligns with the spec) while for consistency it should perhaps just match a hypothetical style (which aligns with ::marker). I'm impartial to what we end up with as long as we make the CSSOM spec clear about it 10:59:09
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilio Noam Rosenthal: yeah so... my understanding of that resolution is that the only thing that VT pseudos matched were names etc, just so that you could have an unambiguous style and return something sensible from gCS and co 11:05:31
@emilio:mozilla.orgemilioBut yeah the written down resolution is a bit different than that11:07:14
@noamr:matrix.orgNoam Rosenthal
In reply to @emilio:mozilla.org
Noam Rosenthal: yeah so... my understanding of that resolution is that the only thing that VT pseudos matched were names etc, just so that you could have an unambiguous style and return something sensible from gCS and co
Also about returning an empty style when there is no active transition. It’s in the minutes
11:07:22
@svgeesus:matrix.orgsvgeesusThanks!15:28:47
@svgeesus:matrix.orgsvgeesusI'm getting an odd lint error in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/44644 ./wpt lint --all --github-checks-text-file=/home/test/artifacts/checkrun.md ERROR:lint:css/css-highlight-api/historical.window.js: Testcase file must have a link to a spec (MISSING-LINK) But a) there are two rel=help spec links in the test and b) what on earth is the relevance of css highlight api to the (png spec) test? How do I resolve that?15:41:07
@ms2ger:igalia.comMs2gerhttps://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/44644#issuecomment-195449947815:47:23
@jgraham_:matrix.orgjgraham Seems like zcorpan commented on the issue (I'm not actually sure you need to rebase; anything that causes the jobs to run again would be enough, but rebasing is probably the best way to do that) 15:47:43
21 Feb 2024
@gsnedders:mozilla.orgSam Sneddon [:gsnedders]this has all turned into https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/44701, erghhhhhh 😐️15:04:24

There are no newer messages yet.


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6