Attempt to make newmulticol/columns-shorthand-parsing.html pass on Mac.

Attempt to make newmulticol/columns-shorthand-parsing.html pass on Mac.

My wild guess here is that the font used on Mac overflows the line box,
and that it triggers different behavior in the two balancing algorithmns.
Set a larger line height to avoid that.

Also removed some content, so that the multicol container fits vertically
within the viewport.

BUG=254219

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-06-27 08:06:31]

Using the reviewer who reviewed the the original patch that introduced the
problem.

But I guess the main thing here is to simply rerun the tests on Mac.

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-06-27 08:40:10]

All my try jobs went red. I suppose I haz no power.

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-03 08:18:05]

I've resolved the conflict. @dpranke: care to start another set of try jobs for
me?

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-19 20:58:55]

If we could get someone to review and test this on the relevant platform, we may
be able to shorten LayoutTests/TestExpectations by one line. :)

[Dirk Pranke, 2013-07-19 21:03:26]

On 2013/07/19 20:58:55, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> If we could get someone to review and test this on the relevant platform, we
may
> be able to shorten LayoutTests/TestExpectations by one line. :)

I'm re-running the patch now. Why did you add the "columns:" line to the test ?

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-19 21:08:51]

On 2013/07/19 21:03:26, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On 2013/07/19 20:58:55, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> > If we could get someone to review and test this on the relevant platform, we
> may
> > be able to shorten LayoutTests/TestExpectations by one line. :)
> 
> I'm re-running the patch now. Why did you add the "columns:" line to the test
?

That's something I should have done in the first revision. I like to add the
unprefixed version, to make it testable in browsers that support it. Perhaps
even Blink will remove the prefix some day?

[Dirk Pranke, 2013-07-19 21:58:14]

On 2013/07/19 21:08:51, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> On 2013/07/19 21:03:26, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > On 2013/07/19 20:58:55, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> > > If we could get someone to review and test this on the relevant platform,
we
> > may
> > > be able to shorten LayoutTests/TestExpectations by one line. :)
> > 
> > I'm re-running the patch now. Why did you add the "columns:" line to the
test
> ?
> 
> That's something I should have done in the first revision. I like to add the
> unprefixed version, to make it testable in browsers that support it. Perhaps
> even Blink will remove the prefix some day?

Bad news: test failed again. Good news: you can at least download the results
now :) ...

https://storage.cloud.google.com/?arg=chromium-layout-test-archives#chromium-...

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-19 22:36:13]

On 2013/07/19 21:58:14, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On 2013/07/19 21:08:51, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> > On 2013/07/19 21:03:26, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > > On 2013/07/19 20:58:55, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> > > > If we could get someone to review and test this on the relevant
platform,
> we
> > > may
> > > > be able to shorten LayoutTests/TestExpectations by one line. :)
> > > 
> > > I'm re-running the patch now. Why did you add the "columns:" line to the
> test
> > ?
> > 
> > That's something I should have done in the first revision. I like to add the
> > unprefixed version, to make it testable in browsers that support it. Perhaps
> > even Blink will remove the prefix some day?
> 
> Bad news: test failed again. Good news: you can at least download the results
> now :) ...
> 
>
https://storage.cloud.google.com/?arg=chromium-layout-test-archives#chromium-...

Hmm.. I only find the -actual.png screenshot, no -expected.png. The screenshot
really looks correctly rendered, though.

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-24 20:52:12]

I'm about to give up on this one and just remove the test. It's not really
valuable anyway. There are already plenty of balancing tests. Making the old and
new multicol implementations render pixel-by-pixel identically isn't a really a
goal.

The question is: to remove the test, should I discard this review and open a new
one? I still feel rather unfamiliar with rietveld, but I suspect that the final
commit message for the landed patch will be very inaccurate if I keep using this
review and do something quite different from what I wrote in the original commit
message?

[eseidel, 2013-07-24 20:55:02]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-24 20:57:41]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mstensho@opera.com/18027002/7001

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-24 21:10:00]

Oops... this is hopefully going to fail. :)
I haven't managed fixed the test properly. That's why I wanted to give up.

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2013-07-25 12:53:26]

On 2013/07/24 21:10:00, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> Oops... this is hopefully going to fail. :)
> I haven't managed fixed the test properly. That's why I wanted to give up.

Good. That failed. :) Now I suggest that we close this review.

I've opened a new one at https://codereview.chromium.org/20228003/ which just
removes the test.