In case flex items had `margin: auto` on the primary flex axis, we were
still also distributing remaining space according to `justify-content`
rules. This lead to duplicated spacing in various places and overflows.
It looks like this issue was observed previously but missidentified
because there was logic to ignore margins at the start and end which
would partially paper over the root cause. However this created other
bugs (like for example not having a margin at beginning and end ;-)) and
I can find nothing in the spec or other browser behaviour that indicates
that this is something that should be done.
Now we skip justify-content space distribution alltogether if it has
already been distributed to auto margins.
The draft CSS-FLEXBOX-1 spec had a more detailed description of this
algorithm, so let's use that as our basis for the implementation.
Test by Aliaksandr. :^)
When resolving these constraints to CSS pixel sizes, we have to resolve
padding-top and padding-bottom against the flex container's *width*,
not its height.
This was necessary in the past, because IFC would set the height of its
containing block after inline layout.
Now that IFC can properly communicate the automatic size to its parent
formatting context, this hack is no longer necessary.
"Specified" means something else in CSS, so let's not use this
overloaded word here. These helpers return the inner main/cross size of
a given box, so let's say "inner" instead.
The name "initial containing block" was wrong for this, as it doesn't
correspond to the HTML element, and that's specifically what it's
supposed to do! :^)
We were incorrectly using the inner main size of the flex container
instead of the avilable space in some parts of the remaining space
calculation. This meant that the algorithm only worked correctly
for definite available space in the main axis.
If we've already established the used width for a flex item, we need
to take it into account when calculating the min-content and max-content
heights for that item.
We were already doing this when calculating cross sizes. This patch adds
the same consideration for main sizes.
When calculating intrinsic heights of flex items, we should use the used
width if available.
This primarily matters for item cross sizing, since that happens after
we've determined the item's main size.
We were trying to take a shortcut by avoiding much of the flex layout
algorithm during intrinsic sizing. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough
since we may end up needing some of the flex item metrics for intrinsic
contribution calculations.
This means we do a bit more work for flexboxes, but intrinsic sizes are
correct in more cases.
When a flex item has a specific preferred size, that size should be its
contribution to the containers intrinsic sizes.
This fixes an issue on Patreon where the logo would cover the entire
viewport since the SVG had a large intrinsic size but the flex item
containing it had a small specified size in CSS.
This colors a bit outside the lines of the specification, but the spec
doesn't offer a proper explanation for how descendants of a flex item
are supposed to have access to the flex item's main size for purposes
of percentage resolution.
The approach I came up with here was to take the hypothetical main size
of each flex item, and assign it as a temporary main size. This allows
percentage resolution in descendants to work against the pre-flexing
main size of items. This seems to match how other engines behave,
although it feels somewhat dirty. If/when we learn more about this,
we can come up with something nicer.
This property tells us how to lay out multi-line flex containers.
I implemented all modes except `space-between` and `space-around`.
Those are left as FIXMEs.
When calculating the fit-content width or height for a flex item, we
need to use the available space *outside* the item, not the available
space *inside*.
We now know exactly how to calculate the min-content cross size for
multi-line flex containers, which is great. The other three intrinsic
constraints still fall back to the old ad-hoc code path.
5630e7b064
For percentage cross min/max sizes that resolve against indefinite
available space, we now essentially ignore them instead of resolving
them to 0 at the start of layout.
When we have nested flexbox layouts within one another, and the child
context wants to call up to the parent context and ask for help with
dimensioning the child flex container, we now simply do nothing.
As far as I can tell, this works out just fine, since the child flex
container will already be dimensioned by the flex layout algorithm.
Previously, FlexFormattingContext would calculate intrinsic sizes in
both axes simultaneously, despite only one being needed.
This patch reduces the amount of unnecessary work by only calculating
the requested intrinsic size.
After speaking with fantasai at CSSWG about this, it turns out I had
misunderstood intrinsic heights. I originally believed all intrinsic
sizes had to be computed with no influence from the surrounding context.
As it turns out, intrinsic heights *are* influenced by the available
width, since it's needed to determine where lines break.
The APIs for calculating min-content and max-content heights now take
the available width as inputs. This instantly improves layout in many
cases where we'd previously make things way too wide.
This is a big and messy change, and here's the gist:
- AvaliableSpace is now 2x AvailableSize (width and height)
- Layout algorithms are redesigned around the idea of available space
- When doing layout across nested formatting contexts, the parent
context tells the child context how much space is available for the
child's root box in both axes.
- "Available space" replaces "containing block width" in most places.
- The width and height in a box's UsedValues are considered to be
definite after they're assigned to. Marking something as having
definite size is no longer a separate step,
This probably introduces various regressions, but the big win here is
that our layout system now works with available space, just like the
specs are written. Fixing issues will be much easier going forward,
since you don't need to do nearly as much conversion from "spec logic"
to "LibWeb logic" as you previously did.
I couldn't find anything in the specs about this, but GMail uses
empty generated boxes (`::before` and `::after` with `content: ""`)
inside a flexbox container in order to vertically center things.
The flexbox spec tells us to not generate flex items for empty
*anonymous* boxes, so we continue not doing that, but generated boxes
(any pseudo-element box) now always produce a flex item. This probably
isn't perfect either, and we'll have to revisit it for stuff like
`::first-letter`.
Instead of formatting contexts flailing around to figure out from the
"inside" how much space is available on the "outside", we should
provide the amount of available space in both axes as an input to run().
This basically means that when something creates a nested formatting
context, the parent context is responsible for telling the nested context
how much space is available for layout. This information is provided
immediately when invoking run().
Note that this commit doesn't pass accurate values in all cases yet.
This first step just makes it build, and passes available values in some
cases where getting them was trivial.
This patch changes the *computed* representation of the following CSS
properties to use CSS::Size:
- width, min-width, max-width
- height, min-height, max-height
A few things had to change in order for things to keep working,
but I tried to keep the diff to a minimum.
The main trouble was that `min-width` and `max-width` can't actually be
`auto`, but they *can* be `none`. We previously treated `auto` as a
valid value (and it behaved mostly like `none`).
This ends up having a big impact on performance, as we now correctly
treat a used flex-basis of `content` as `max-content` which means
we can use cacheable intrinsic sizes for flex items in the majority
of cases.
This function should return the automatic height of the formatting
context's root box.
Until now, we've been relying on some magical handshakes between parent
and child context, when negotiating the height of child context root
boxes. This is a step towards something more reasonable.
