-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[css-flexbox-1] Add a test for definite cross sizes #5282
Conversation
Notifying @atanassov, @cbiesinger, @chenxix, @fantasai, @kojiishi, @mrego, @plinss, and @tabatkins. (Learn how reviewing works.) |
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @syncbot on 27 Feb 2016, 00:28 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @syncbot on 27 Feb 2016, 00:30 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @dholbert on 07 Mar 2016, 23:19 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 07 Mar 2016, 23:21 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @dholbert on 07 Mar 2016, 23:37 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @dholbert on 07 Mar 2016, 23:43 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @dholbert on 07 Mar 2016, 23:46 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @syncbot on 27 Mar 2017, 20:26 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 27 Mar 2017, 20:27 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 27 Mar 2017, 20:27 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 27 Mar 2017, 20:27 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 27 Mar 2017, 20:28 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 27 Mar 2017, 20:32 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @syncbot on 27 Mar 2017, 20:39 UTC:
|
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 (comment) by @cbiesinger on 27 Mar 2017, 20:40 UTC:
|
Firefox (nightly channel)Testing web-platform-tests at revision 20e1787 All results2 tests ran/css/css-flexbox-1/percentage-heights-001.html
/innerText/setter.html
|
Chrome (unstable channel)Testing web-platform-tests at revision 20e1787 All results2 tests ran/css/css-flexbox-1/percentage-heights-001.html
/innerText/setter.html
|
At first glance, I have two superficial nits:
Beyond that, I'll hold off until I'm clearer about best-practices for reviewing, per my questions just now over in #5281. |
7b25a9b
to
2e19868
Compare
@dholbert fixed both of those |
Firefox (nightly)Testing web-platform-tests at revision 06b3a7c All results1 test ran/css/css-flexbox-1/percentage-heights-001.html
|
Chrome (unstable)Testing web-platform-tests at revision 06b3a7c |
@dholbert ping? gsnedders fixed your comments here. |
</div> | ||
</div> | ||
|
||
<p>Tests that we get a definite size in a wrapping flexbox:</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do you have "style="height: 50px;" here? The descriptive text implies that the only difference between this one & the previous one is the presence of flex-wrap:wrap
(via the wrap
class). But you've also got an explicit height here for some reason, not mentioned in the description.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wrote this a while ago but I think I wanted to make sure that even though https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#definite-sizes #1 is limited to non-wrapping containers, that we do consider this definite due to #3. However, I think you're right that I should also have a test without an explicit height and a better description.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then again, maybe the explicit height case isn't worth it, I'll delete it for now.
</div> | ||
|
||
<p>Tests that we get an definite size in a wrapping flexbox:</p> | ||
<div class="flexbox wrap" style="height: 50px;" data-expected-height="50"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do you have "style="height: 50px;" here? The descriptive text implies that the only difference between this one & the previous one is the presence of flex-wrap:wrap
(via the wrap
class). But you've also got an explicit height here for some reason, not mentioned in the description.
If you do need the explicit height for some reason (and I'm not sure you do), then you probably want the descriptive text to mention it -- e.g. "wrapping definite-height flexbox". (But I think the descriptive text only starts mentioning definite-height flexboxes a few examples down from this one -- so I'm guessing this one's just a mistake?)
</div> | ||
</div> | ||
|
||
<p>Tests that we get an indefinite size when not stretch-aligning:</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The descriptive text here probably wants to say "despite definite size on container". (Or maybe you want to just remove the definite "height: 50px" size on the container?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, the first part.
one has an explicit height and has an opposite direction:</p> | ||
<div class="flexbox" style="height: 50px;" data-expected-height="50"> | ||
<div class="flexbox column" data-expected-height="50"> | ||
<div class="flex-one" data-expected-height="50"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The description implies that the only difference between this example & the previous one is the "flex-direction" of the nested flexbox. But you've also got "flex-one" here for some reason (which isn't there in the previous example) -- that's one additional difference. Might be worth hinting at the this, in the descriptive text? (And/or adding an HTML comment to hint at the reason for it.) I don't immediately understand the significance of that difference.
</div> | ||
</div> | ||
|
||
<p>Tests that we respect min-height:</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps expand descriptive text to be a bit more specific, e.g.:
"Tests that we respect min-height, on child of a flex item with percent height that's treated as definite:"
Or:
"Tests that we respect min-height as a clamp for definite percentage height:"
ALSO: this makes me think -- it might be worth testing a percent min/max-height in this scenario (probably max-height since we're generally testing percent resolution by letting it produce a smaller size). e.g. we should have something like the very first example in this file, but with "max-height: 50%" instead of "height: 50%" on the child of the flex item. That should end up with a height of 25, I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will do
@dholbert thanks for the review, can you take another look? |
Sauce (safari)Testing web-platform-tests at revision 06b3a7c All results1 test ran/css/css-flexbox-1/percentage-heights-001.html
|
Sauce (MicrosoftEdge)Testing web-platform-tests at revision 06b3a7c All results1 test ran/css/css-flexbox-1/percentage-heights-001.html
|
Sure -- I'll aim to get to this early next week. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks - looks like you addressed my comments, so I think this is good!
(I'm ticking "Approve" / "Submit review" which I think is what's needed here - let me know if there's anything else I should do.)
Oh... I think you are not an official reviewer (?) for some reason, as far as Github is concerned. But I think I can do that? Let me try this... |
Originally posted as w3c/csswg-test#1057 by @cbiesinger on 27 Feb 2016, 00:28 UTC: