Rebaseline details-nested-2.html and clone-anonymous-block-non-inline-child-crash.html after 126789
Created attachment 161027 [details] Rebaseline details-nested-2.html and clone-anonymous-block-non-inline-child-crash.html after 126789
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/126789/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/mac/fast/html/details-nested-2-expected.txt part of the change is wrong. Since we shouldn't be adding empty anonymous block, see http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/120477. That was a pretty nasty google docs bug, so it looks like r126789 is bringing it back and needs to be investigated. this part of the change (removing)"RenderInline {LABEL} at (0,0) size 0x0" is benign since it won't make a rendering difference.
(In reply to comment #2) > http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/126789/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/mac/fast/html/details-nested-2-expected.txt part of the change is wrong. Since we shouldn't be adding empty anonymous block, see http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/120477. That was a pretty nasty google docs bug, so it looks like r126789 is bringing it back and needs to be investigated. Under a details tag, it will be ok, since children are forced to be blocks, but if both inline and block children are allowed, we will run into case like the test in r120477. We should let morrita@ and tasak@ to decide what to do here. > > this part of the change (removing)"RenderInline {LABEL} at (0,0) size 0x0" is benign since it won't make a rendering difference.
Comment on attachment 161027 [details] Rebaseline details-nested-2.html and clone-anonymous-block-non-inline-child-crash.html after 126789 r+ing since these are just rebaselines, exactly same as the patch. if there is a bug in patch, it needs to be seperately handled and discussed.
Tasak@, can you please file a followup bug on c#2.
Committed as http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/126923