Update actions/checkout requirement to v2.3.4 #1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![dependabot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/29110?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Updates the requirements on [actions/checkout](https://github.com/actions/checkout) to permit the latest version. - [Release notes](https://github.com/actions/checkout/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/actions/checkout/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) - [Commits](https://github.com/actions/checkout/commits/5a4ac9002d0be2fb38bd78e4b4dbde5606d7042f) Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
dependabot
bot
added
dependencies
ExE-Boss
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 23, 2021
Currently, the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor is called twice for composite background-color animation, once during paint time and once during the compositing stage. The reason is that we need the decision during paint and compositing consistent. That is, if the paint stage says the background color must be paint on the main thread, then compositing stage has to agree with that, and vice versa. However, this is dangerous because between the paint and compositing stage, things could change, especially the PaintArtifactCompositor, which is used by the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor. For example, it could happen that at paint time we have not produced / updated the property nodes for the current frame and we can make decision based on what was composited on the previous frame. Then at Precommit we have potentially updated / added / removed property tree nodes. In this case, the return value of CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor can be different, as a result, the background color animation won't run correctly. The reason we needed to know whether the animation could be composited here is that we didn't have a way to paint the background color off the main thread. More specifically, the BackgroundColorPaintWorklet::Paint() function can paint the background color only if the animation is running on the compositor thread. This CL makes following changes: 1. Make the BackgroundColorPaintWorklet::Paint() have the ability to paint the background color even if the animation is running on the main thread. The function needs two things: the current progress of the animation and the artifacts about the animation. So all we need is just getting the progress when the animation is running on the main thread. 2. With #1 being done, we no longer need to call the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor during the paint step. As a result, whether or not the animation can be running on the compositor thread is solely the decision during the compositing stage. This is much safer than the current code, because we no longer need to make a compositing decision during the paint stage. We don't need to add any new tests because we already have sufficient layout tests for background color animation being run on the compositor as well as on the main thread. As long as all tests pass, this should be safe. The main benefit of this change is that the code is now more robust, meaning that we don't need to worry about the decision made by the paint and compositing stage being different. This change is also a performance win because we no longer need to call the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor twice. Bug: 1185272, 1182261 Change-Id: Ie072714fd1d05e6537e05cad45ad1da99e20125b Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2740697 Reviewed-by: Robert Flack <flackr@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Xida Chen <xidachen@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#863622}
|
OK, I won't notify you again about this release, but will get in touch when a new version is available. If you change your mind, just re-open this PR and I'll resolve any conflicts on it. |
foolip
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2021
…eb-platform-tests#28617) Subresource Web Bundles. The problem is: when Web Bundle fetching fails due to a network error, Subresource fetch doesn't fail forever. One such case (subresource-loading-cors-error test) was timing out previously but passes successfully with this change. This CL also adds 2 WPT tests: 1. subresource-loading-network-error.https.tentative.sub.html 2. subresource-loading-web-bundle-fetch-failed.https.tentative.html Test #1 is a scenario with a different network error than the CORS one, but with the same issue of subresource fetching timing out without the change. It passes successfully after the change. Test #2 is a scenario with a Web bundle not found error, which is not directly influenced by the code added in this CL, but it expands the test coverage which was found to be lacking the error cases before. Bug: 1168449 Change-Id: Ia3abb967e36274becc86e317bc51b1272d3ae679 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2826001 Reviewed-by: Tsuyoshi Horo <horo@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Miras Myrzakerey <myrzakereyms@google.com> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#875532} Co-authored-by: Miras Myrzakerey <myrzakereyms@google.com>
ExE-Boss
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2021
1. Only process ChildrenChanged() for the included root of a change. For example, if a <div id="root" style="display:none"> will be included because it is a potential relation target. If descendants change, the only ChildrenChanged() necessary to process is on #root. 2. Share common code for detaching a node and queuing up the appropriate children changes. This simplifies ProcessInvalidatedObjects() by removing one of the inner loops, and enables a follow-up CL to remove the outer loop as well. #1 results in a massive speedup for display none toggles. In combination with other recent changes in DetachAndRemoveFromChildrenOfAncestors(), is 7x faster for many-nodes-toggle-display-none in perf_tests . This change alone accounts for about half of the overall improvement. Follow-ups: - Restore lifecycle check by processing deferred children changes via nodes_with_pending_children_changed_ and not queuing via the traditional mechanism. While doing this, look for opportunities to consolidate more children changed events. - Remove outer loop from ProcessInvalidatedObjects(). Bug: None Change-Id: I80466fda792cd0ca6dd051065a42ba702e4cc8b1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2946971 Reviewed-by: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#891343}
ExE-Boss
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2021
1. Use GetWithoutInvalidation() instead of Get() in DCHECKs. We should never call Get() inside of a DCHECK(), because this can lead to a different code path depending on whether DCHECKs are enabled. 2. Get() should not cause immediate side effects. At most, it should queue up an invalidation for later processing. Fixing #1 and #2 were required in order to get past a first set of errors introduced by the new test. 3. The actual fix -- avoid infinite loop by calling a special new SlotAssignmentWillChange(), rather than ChildrenChanged(), where a minimal GetWithoutInvalidation() is called that does not lead to IsShadowContentRelevantForAccessibility() => FirstChild() => RecalcAssignedNodes() => ChildrenChanged() ... (infinite loop). A simpler potential fix is in CL:2965317 but requires more research. It's also mentioned in a TODO comment. Bug: 1219311 Change-Id: Iafaa289f241a851404ce352715d2970172a2e5f8 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2961158 Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#892778}
ExE-Boss
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2021
Relative offsets should be applied after fragmentation. Since we perform layout for OOFs once they reach the fragmentation context root (if applicable), we fail to apply any relative offsets at the correct time in the case of inline containing blocks. See CL:2851595 for how this was handled for the non-inline case. The changes required to accomplish this for inline containing blocks include: 1. We currently store an accumulated relative offset in NGContainingBlock inside the OOF node, which is any relative offset from the containing block to the fragmentation context root. We also need to store an accumulated relative offset from the inline container to the containing block in order to properly apply all relative offsets at the time of fragmentation. A new struct, NGInlineContainer, was added to the OOF node to hold the inline container object and the accumulated relative offset to the containing block. 2. A relative offset was also added to the InlineContainingBlockGeometry struct so that we have access to the relative offset from #1 when creating the ContainingBlockInfo for the inline container. 3. The way that relative offsets are applied to inlines, it didn't seem straightforward to separate the relative offset from the normal offset, like we had in CL:2851595. Instead, store the relative offset for the inline and subtract it out from the OOF static position once it reaches the containing block, and subtract it from the containing block rect offset when determining the ContainingBlockInfo for the inline container. 4. Store the total relative offset (from the inline container to the fragmentation context root) in ContainingBlockInfo. This relative offset will then be applied after fragmentation is complete for the OOF as a result of CL:2851595. Bug: 1079031 Change-Id: I7198fec4c01e05ca54c51b2f215569b75b0b869e Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2995308 Commit-Queue: Alison Maher <almaher@microsoft.com> Reviewed-by: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Koji Ishii <kojii@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#902060}
ExE-Boss
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 8, 2021
This patch adds a new produceCropId() API to mediaDevices. This API is called with a DIV or IFRAME element, and adds a new base::UnguessableToken value to that element's rare data structure. This token value will be used in followup patches in order to keep track of an element's location in the page and viewport. Based on the following design document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dULARMnMZggfWqa_Ti_GrINRNYXGIli3XK9brzAKEV8/ Bug: 1247761 Change-Id: I01cd67e2d4e3dfa7a86289f876e48c8b55095d0a Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3173396 Commit-Queue: Jordan Bayles <jophba@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Elad Alon <eladalon@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#925544}
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Updates the requirements on actions/checkout to permit the latest version.
Release notes
Sourced from actions/checkout's releases.
Changelog
Sourced from actions/checkout's changelog.
... (truncated)
Commits
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
@dependabot rebase.Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)