You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Renaming scheme got lost, however basically:
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-4.html -> grid-item-aspect-ratio-stretch-1.html
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-5.html -> grid-item-aspect-ratio-stretch-2.html
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-6.html -> grid-item-aspect-ratio-stretch-3.html
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-7.html -> grid-item-aspect-ratio-stretch-4.html
These tests all had a viewBox defining a valid aspect-ratio. Due to:
w3c/csswg-drafts#6286 (comment)
These tests *should* have an aspect-ratio, and when stretched in one
dimension, should reflect to the other dimension (if unconstrained). See:
w3c/csswg-drafts#5713 (comment)
The below two tests basically just got renamed:
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-8.html -> grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-4.html
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-9.html -> grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-5.html
grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-10.html -> grid-item-no-aspect-ratio-stretch-6.html
But tests updated to correctly assert that the natural size would still
be respected.
To all these test-cases I also added "grid-template: 100% / 100%;" as
there is further complexity when inside an auto row/column which is
tested elsewhere.
(Transferred minimum size for replaced elements with an aspect-ratio).
Bug: 1114013
Change-Id: I062f67e291cc62fa63a53370595780dae16abf3b
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3003564
Reviewed-by: David Grogan
Reviewed-by: Kurt Catti-Schmidt
Commit-Queue: Ian Kilpatrick
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#898351}
0 commit comments