Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly. There's a small fix here. Previously, the strut wasn't
baked into the logical top of a table row, unlike all other layout objects.
This resulted in wrong offsets for table rows after fragmentainer breaks,
but the cells in there still had correct offsets, so it wasn't possible
to observe this bug in any visual test. It does affect a couple of
dump-render-tree printing tests, though. Added a couple of tests for this
on my own, which use offsetTop and offsetHeight.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751
Committed: https://crrev.com/7360974b322ce25f50726e1722f5bcca977577da
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#426265}

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-18 19:42:01]

The CQ bit was checked by mstensho@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-18 19:42:31]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-18 21:03:32]

Description was changed from

==========
Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751
==========

to

==========
Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly. There's a small fix here. Previously, the strut wasn't
baked into the logical top of a table row, unlike all other layout objects.
This resulted in wrong offsets for table rows after fragmentainer breaks,
but the cells in there still had correct offsets, so it wasn't possible
to observe this bug in any visual test. It does affect a couple of
dump-render-tree printing tests, though. Added a couple of tests for this
on my own, which use offsetTop and offsetHeight.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-18 21:14:36]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-18 21:14:37]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-19 11:06:33]

The CQ bit was checked by mstensho@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 11:07:30]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 12:21:20]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 12:21:21]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-19 15:27:50]

mstensho@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ dgrogan@chromium.org, eae@chromium.org, robhogan@gmail.com

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-19 15:27:50]

I'm struggling with the rebaseline machinery, but this is ready for review.

[eae, 2016-10-19 15:46:18]

LGTM

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-19 17:10:56]

The CQ bit was checked by mstensho@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 17:11:30]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 19:17:04]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 19:17:05]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-19 19:41:37]

The CQ bit was checked by mstensho@opera.com

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2016-10-19 19:41:38]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from eae@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2433473002/#ps40001
(title: "Rebaseline semi-manually thank you very much.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 19:42:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 20:05:40]

Description was changed from

==========
Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly. There's a small fix here. Previously, the strut wasn't
baked into the logical top of a table row, unlike all other layout objects.
This resulted in wrong offsets for table rows after fragmentainer breaks,
but the cells in there still had correct offsets, so it wasn't possible
to observe this bug in any visual test. It does affect a couple of
dump-render-tree printing tests, though. Added a couple of tests for this
on my own, which use offsetTop and offsetHeight.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751
==========

to

==========
Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly. There's a small fix here. Previously, the strut wasn't
baked into the logical top of a table row, unlike all other layout objects.
This resulted in wrong offsets for table rows after fragmentainer breaks,
but the cells in there still had correct offsets, so it wasn't possible
to observe this bug in any visual test. It does affect a couple of
dump-render-tree printing tests, though. Added a couple of tests for this
on my own, which use offsetTop and offsetHeight.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-19 20:05:40]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 13:10:53]

Description was changed from

==========
Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly. There's a small fix here. Previously, the strut wasn't
baked into the logical top of a table row, unlike all other layout objects.
This resulted in wrong offsets for table rows after fragmentainer breaks,
but the cells in there still had correct offsets, so it wasn't possible
to observe this bug in any visual test. It does affect a couple of
dump-render-tree printing tests, though. Added a couple of tests for this
on my own, which use offsetTop and offsetHeight.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751
==========

to

==========
Move table row pagination strut insertion to the first layout pass.

Pagination struts are inserted before a table row, when we should avoid
breaking inside it, and it doesn't fit as a whole in its current fragmentainer.
We should avoid breaking inside rows when their break-inside is "avoid", or
when there are repeating table headers (which turns on break-inside:avoid for
all rows in the table).

This CL also includes the code that deals with repeating headers, since it
proved hard to separate it from the rest.

We need to make sure to subtract the struts from previous rows' height now;
just like we don't include border spacing in the rows, we should also omit the
pagination strut of the next row. In order to be consistent about this,
layoutRows() in LayoutTableSection now uses the rows' logical heighs more
extensively than before (rather than using the m_rowPos array to calculate
heights). This has an implication for rowspanned cells. We now need to wait
until we are at their last row before processing them, since we calculate row
heights on the fly. There's a small fix here. Previously, the strut wasn't
baked into the logical top of a table row, unlike all other layout objects.
This resulted in wrong offsets for table rows after fragmentainer breaks,
but the cells in there still had correct offsets, so it wasn't possible
to observe this bug in any visual test. It does affect a couple of
dump-render-tree printing tests, though. Added a couple of tests for this
on my own, which use offsetTop and offsetHeight.

table-disable-fragmentation.html is just a regression test. We need to be
careful to ignore struts when not fragmented. It passed before and it passes
now, but I nearly broke it while working on this.

BUG=534751

Committed: https://crrev.com/7360974b322ce25f50726e1722f5bcca977577da
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#426265}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 13:10:54]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/7360974b322ce25f50726e1722f5bcca977577da
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#426265}