so that test pages can make sure that the render tree is clean.
<rdar://problem/60012372>
Created attachment 392329 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 392329 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=392329&action=review > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:10 > + However in certain cases (see Hyatt's optimization on lazy offsetHeight/Width computation) this call can leave the tree partially dirty. Maybe reference an actual function rather than assuming that we all know what hyatt's optimizations are. > Source/WebCore/testing/Internals.idl:533 > + void updateLayoutAndStyleRecursively(); I think "for all frames" would be clearer that "recursively"; it's not clear what's being recursed on. > LayoutTests/fast/images/animated-gif-no-layout.html:13 > + internals.updateLayoutAndStyleRecursively(); Why not replace or remove the document.body.offsetWidth above?
Created attachment 392334 [details] Patch
(In reply to Simon Fraser (smfr) from comment #3) > Comment on attachment 392329 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=392329&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:10 > > + However in certain cases (see Hyatt's optimization on lazy offsetHeight/Width computation) this call can leave the tree partially dirty. > > Maybe reference an actual function rather than assuming that we all know > what hyatt's optimizations are. Fixed. > > > Source/WebCore/testing/Internals.idl:533 > > + void updateLayoutAndStyleRecursively(); > > I think "for all frames" would be clearer that "recursively"; it's not clear > what's being recursed on. Much better name indeed. > > > LayoutTests/fast/images/animated-gif-no-layout.html:13 > > + internals.updateLayoutAndStyleRecursively(); > > Why not replace or remove the document.body.offsetWidth above? Removed.
Comment on attachment 392334 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 392334 Committed r257811: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/257811>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.