Everything related to hit testing is better off using the painting tree.
The thing being mousemoved over is a paintable, so let's hand that out
directly instead of the corresponding layout node.
Input events have nothing to do with layout, so let's not send them to
layout nodes.
The job of Paintable starts to become clear. It represents a paintable
item that can be rendered into the viewport, which means it can also
be targeted by the mouse cursor.
This patch adds a bunch of Paintable subclasses, each corresponding to
the Layout::Node subclasses that had a paint() override. All painting
logic is moved from layout nodes into their corresponding paintables.
Paintables are now created by asking a Layout::Box to produce one:
static NonnullOwnPtr<Paintable> Layout::Box::create_paintable()
Note that inline nodes still have their painting logic. Since they
are not boxes, and all paintables have a corresponding box, we'll need
to come up with some other solution for them.
BlockContainer paint boxes are the only ones that have line boxes
associated, so let's not waste memory on line boxes in all the other
types of boxes.
This also adds Layout::Box::paint_box() and the more tightly typed
Layout::BlockContainer::paint_box() to get at the paint box from the
corresponding layout box.
The "paintable" state in Layout::Box was actually not safe to access
until after layout had been performed.
As a first step towards making this harder to mess up accidentally,
this patch moves painting information from Layout::Box to a new class:
Painting::Box. Every layout can have a corresponding paint box, and
it holds the final used metrics determined by layout.
The paint box is created and populated by FormattingState::commit().
I've also added DOM::Node::paint_box() as a convenient way to access
the paint box (if available) of a given DOM node.
Going forward, I believe this will allow us to better separate data
that belongs to layout vs painting, and also open up opportunities
for naturally invalidating caches in the paint box (since it's
reconstituted by every layout.)
This is an editorial change in the Temporal spec.
See: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/commit/26a4c4f
No behavioral change as we already did this correctly, but I changed
some implicit JS::Value creations to explicit ones.
This is an editorial change in the Temporal spec.
See: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/commit/983902e
We already had these defined as structs, but now they're properly
defined in the spec (opposed to the previous anonymous records), and we
don't have to make up our own names anymore :^)
Note that while we're usually not including 'record' in the name, in
this case the 'Duration Record' has a name clash with the Duration
object. Additionally, later editorial changes introduce CreateFooRecord
AOs, so let's just go with FooRecord structs here.
The blank string "" does not parse as JSON, and so the InspectorWidget
would fail to update the box-model information when inspecting elements
with no box, (for example, `<head>`) showing stale values instead. Now,
they show all 0s.
You could argue that InspectorWidget should be more resilient when given
invalid JSON strings, but making sure we only pass valid ones works
too.
