Update actions/checkout requirement to v2.3.4 #2
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
|
Looks like actions/checkout is up-to-date now, so this is no longer needed. |
dependabot
bot
deleted the
dependabot/github_actions/actions/checkout-v2.3.4
branch
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 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>
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 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}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2021
This is a manual reland of https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3247449 The difference from the previous reland is that the browser tests now include 2 separate timeouts and a double rAF, to ensure that the presentation timestamp taken is far enough from both the time the first frame is sent as well as from the time the second frame is sent. More importantly, the test now actually is looking at the UKM metric, rather than at the histogram. Original change's description: > [LCP] Add animated image support > > This CL adds support for better handling of animated images in LCP: > * A new attribute is exposing the first animated frame's paint time > (behind a flag). > * `startTime` is not changed. > * The PageLoadMetrics reported for LCP are set to that first frame paint > time for animated images (behind another flag). > * Entries are not emitted until the image is loaded. > > Relevant spec issue: > w3c/largest-contentful-paint#83 Bug: 1260953 Change-Id: I34070bd90a74ed44281da63b547f13d9669f389b Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3250690 Reviewed-by: Nicolás Peña Moreno <npm@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Yoav Weiss <yoavweiss@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#936516}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2022
The previous patch: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3371612/6 checked an AnonymousIframe and an Iframe wasn't sharing the same partition. This one test: - Two sibling same-origin anonymous iframe share the same partition. - Two same-origin nested anonymous iframe share the same partition. - Two same-origin anonymous iframe from different popup do not share the same partition. Bug: 1285331,1226469 Change-Id: I7ebc3a5bbb5e1f12d0ceaac9d89c1deb30174a37 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3379159 Reviewed-by: Andrew Williams <awillia@google.com> Commit-Queue: Arthur Sonzogni <arthursonzogni@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#960946} Co-authored-by: Arthur Sonzogni <arthursonzogni@chromium.org>
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2022
By adding new exhaustive tests under ordering/, it was revealed that the ordering between navigatesuccess/navigateerror and the committed/finished promises was not always consistent:
1. Simply adding a currentchange event handler would cause microtasks to run during commit, which changed some ordering.
2. Calling transitionWhile() would take us from the zero-promise case to the 1+-promise case in ScriptPromise::All(). As the new comment explains, both the spec and implementation have an observably-different fast path for the 0-promise case which caused changes in ordering.
In the course of fixing this, I found out that the did_finish_before_commit_ code in app_history_api_navigation.{h,cc} was actually not a mitigation for the case it stated, where promises passed to transitionWhile() would settle faster than the browser-process roundtrip for same-document traversals. That is in fact impossible, since we only fire the navigate event after the browser-process roundtrip has completed. Instead, they were a mitigation for (1).
This commit then ensures consistent ordering, tested with new rather-exhaustive tests, in the following manner:
* We move the firing of currentchange to before resolving the committed promise. This eliminates (1) and allows us to delete the did_finish_before_commit_ tracking.
* We always ensure we pass 1+ promises to ScriptPromise::All(). This eliminates (2).
A consequence of this is that we are now more likely to get rejected finished promises, in cases like
await appHistory.navigate("#1").committed;
await appHistory.navigate("#2").committed;
Before, the finished promise for the #1 navigation would go through the fast path per (2), and fulfill before the navigation to #2 canceled it. Now that does not happen, so code like the above will give an unhandled promise rejection for #1's finished promise.
To avoid this, we unconditionally mark finished promises as handled. This follows some web platform precedent, e.g. stream closed promises, where the promise is one of several information channels (in this case the developer might also find out via the AbortSignal or the navigateerror event). We do *not* do this for the committed promise though, as if a commit fails, that's probably something more deeply wrong, and cannot be ignored.
All of these changes will require spec updates.
For the tests, we introduce a new ordering/ directory which contains cross-cutting ordering tests, and we consolidate a few tests into the newly-introduced variant-driven exhaustive ones. A couple of other tests were affected by these changes too or fixed as a drive-by.
Change-Id: I8a50ca28d009e0a8a2c94331cd17f29b0a8dc463
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3405377
Reviewed-by: Nate Chapin <japhet@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Domenic Denicola <domenic@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#963772}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2022
This test fails with off-by-one values on the green background. This is attempt #2 to fix that, by adding fuzziness. Bug: 1323293 Change-Id: I9f51f257ef0064b6cd144a32ae01b148ed881112 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3638193 Reviewed-by: Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org> Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1001695}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2023
In the case that a popover contains an invoker that points back to that invoker, the tab navigation code used to get confused. E.g.: ``` <div id="menu" popover> <button autofocus popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #1</button> <button popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #2</button> </div> ``` In this case, trying to tab between the first and second button would break because the second button appeared to be an invoker for a new popover, when in reality it was an invoker for the same popover. Fixed: 1399601 Bug: 1307772 Change-Id: I276370d7c8eee0dd32f0c89da202a0d3777bf911 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4133482 Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1089080}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2023
…on discrete properties." Original patch: https://crrev.com/c/4219315 Revert 1: https://crrev.com/c/4305045 Reland 1: https://crrev.com/c/4304846 Revert 2: https://crrev.com/c/4307944 Despite the most relaxed value in TestExpectations for discrete-no-interpolation.tentative.html, some bots are still breaking for reasons I don't understand. I am going to remove the test completely until it stops crashing or failing. This patch will still be useful despite the lack of tests because other people are doing prototyping work that builds on this change. Bug: 1399631, 1413556 Change-Id: Ic08f16d6436e37acc8947a94ca699c1735fe221f Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4308075 Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Auto-Submit: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1114026}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2023
…sitions on discrete properties."" This reverts commit 268250b.
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2023
…les transitions on discrete properties.""" (web-platform-tests#38936) This reverts commit 78f70fd.
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2023
Most of the logic now lives on NaviagateEvent itself (in React() and ReactDone()), which the new NavigateEvent::Reaction is a minimal callback function wrapper. Change-Id: Id31152b048fc7166a8ac45bda7e136a2143fd56f Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4369772 Reviewed-by: Domenic Denicola <domenic@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Nate Chapin <japhet@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1123074}
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2023
…each time of the loop There are 2 possible scenarios which are not handled by the method. 1. Moving content node to new `<blockquote>` has already been moved to outside of the editing host. 2. There is no container to insert new `<blockquote>`, e.g., in an inline editing host. In the case #1, we should ignore the ex-child node. In the case #2, we should abort it. Note that Chrome inserts `<blockquote>` even if there is no proper container. However, such behavior is disagreed in interop-2023. Therefore, it's okay just to abort it for now. Depends on D180781 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D180782 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1756237 gecko-commit: 42f3f3ab11b47f1d56d8bcd6a128398539dd1f23 gecko-reviewers: m_kato
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2023
…eb-platform-tests#40504) * [wdspec] browsingContext.print: fix rounding error in page.py test [pytest](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/7a087d54be8b6c0ca0181a86dc1ff0b28461c383/webdriver/tests/support/image.py) uses: def cm_to_px(cm): return round(cm * 96 / 2.54) [js](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/7a087d54be8b6c0ca0181a86dc1ff0b28461c383/tools/wptrunner/wptrunner/print_pdf_runner.html) uses: const viewport = page.getViewport({ scale: 96. / 72. }); ... canvas.height = viewport.height; canvas.width = viewport.width; This produces a rounding error, even though the dimension is correct: > assert cm_to_px(expected_dimensions["height"]) == height E assert 454 == 453 E +454 E -453 The inconsistency of rounding in both ends becomes clear when we eliminate "round" in the pytest side: > assert cm_to_px(expected_dimensions["height"]) == height E assert 453.54330708661416 == 453 E +453.54330708661416 E -453 There are multiple ways to fix this issue. Option #1: Use "floor" instead of "round" in pytest. Option #2: Use a range in the assertion comparison, allowing a difference of up to +-1.0. This is what this PR does. The comparison is performed in [`assert_pdf_dimensions`](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/b6107cc1ac8b9c2800b4c8e58af719b8e4d9b8db/webdriver/tests/support/fixtures_bidi.py#L210). The problematic part is .96 / .72 which evaluates to 4/3 = 1.333333.... * use floor in cm_to_px instead of round * compare to floor and to round instead of a range * Revert "compare to floor and to round instead of a range" This reverts commit 63f894e. * Revert "use floor in cm_to_px instead of round" This reverts commit 7e65d91.
mrego
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2024
…rners We had two issues: 1. Before we had fast rounded corners, we always created mask layers for rounded corner clips, and the mask layer made the scroll begin unreliable and fall back to the main thread. With fast rounded corners, the scrolls were treated as reliable without checking if the point is in or out of the rounded corners. 2. If the scroller has a rounded corner by itself (instead of from an ancestor), as we only create InnerBorderRadiusClip for the contents, the compositor doesn't actually know which part of the layer bounds is transparent to hit test (e.g. if the scroller has a border which is outside of the InnerBorderRadiusClip). Now with HitTestOpaqueness, such layers have HitTestOpaqueness::kMixed. This CL changes the behavior of LayerTreeImpl::FindLayersUpToFirstOpaqueToHitTest (renamed from FindLayerUpToFirstScrollableOrOpaqueToHitTest): - For issue #1: LayerImpl::OpaqueToHitTest() also checks whether the layer is affected by any fast rounded corners; - For issue #2: FindLayerUpToFirstOpaqueToHitTest checks only OpaqueToHitTest() (without checking IsScrollerOrScrollbar()) because a hit test on a scrollable layer is reliable only if it's opaque to hit test. Bug: 40277896 Change-Id: I1acb16f2c6790760661e8239ea1599035f83ea51 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5466909 Commit-Queue: Xianzhu Wang <wangxianzhu@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Steve Kobes <skobes@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1291538}
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)