Upstream first set of position:sticky tests to WPT

Upstream first set of position:sticky tests to WPT

This first CL contains some basic tests of top/bottom/left/right
constraint support.

BUG=699244
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#466328}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b62b50144a75397c298a1cb49f39a1e87abf665d

[smcgruer, 2017-03-07 21:10:58]

Description was changed from

==========
Example wpt sticky tests

BUG=699244
==========

to

==========
Example wpt sticky tests

DO NOT SUBMIT

BUG=699244
==========

[smcgruer, 2017-03-07 21:11:19]

smcgruer@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ flackr@chromium.org

[smcgruer, 2017-03-16 18:29:32]

PTAL and lmk what you think about this style for the wpt tests. See
http://web-platform-tests.org/reviewing-tests/index.html for reviewing
guidelines for wpts.

[flackr, 2017-03-17 17:42:01]

This generally looks good to me. Just a couple comments.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:31:
position: sticky;
For compatibility with Safari, I feel like we should also add position:
-webkit-sticky;

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:36:
.indicator {
Should we also have an outer indicator for the outer position sticky element's
expected position?

[smcgruer, 2017-03-17 17:59:31]

Awesome. I will continue porting in this style over the next few weeks. csswg
isn't to land in wpt until late March, so not much hurry :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:31:
position: sticky;
On 2017/03/17 17:42:01, flackr wrote:
> For compatibility with Safari, I feel like we should also add position:
> -webkit-sticky;

Asked on #testing, gsnedders said we shouldn't.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:36:
.indicator {
On 2017/03/17 17:42:01, flackr wrote:
> Should we also have an outer indicator for the outer position sticky element's
> expected position?

Done.

[flackr, 2017-03-17 18:25:34]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:31:
position: sticky;
On 2017/03/17 17:59:30, smcgruer wrote:
> On 2017/03/17 17:42:01, flackr wrote:
> > For compatibility with Safari, I feel like we should also add position:
> > -webkit-sticky;
> 
> Asked on #testing, gsnedders said we shouldn't.

Acknowledged.

[flackr, 2017-03-17 18:27:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:65:
<div class="outerSticky" style="top: 0;">
We can have an inner indicator too right? To mark the expected position of both
the outer and inner sticky elements.

[smcgruer, 2017-03-17 18:41:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-nested-top.html:65:
<div class="outerSticky" style="top: 0;">
On 2017/03/17 18:27:36, flackr wrote:
> We can have an inner indicator too right? To mark the expected position of
both
> the outer and inner sticky elements.

Oh, that's an excellent idea, fixed. I wasn't thinking properly about the paint
order :)

[smcgruer, 2017-04-03 15:24:32]

Description was changed from

==========
Example wpt sticky tests

DO NOT SUBMIT

BUG=699244
==========

to

==========
Upstream first set of position:sticky tests to WPT

This first CL contains some basic tests of top/bottom/left/right
constraint support.

BUG=699244
==========

[smcgruer, 2017-04-03 15:28:13]

PTAL. I was trying to decide if there should also be an unconstrained case in
each of these tests, but that be unnecessary.

[flackr, 2017-04-07 18:46:51]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/120001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/120001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-top.html:81:
<div class="sticky box" style="top: 125px;"></div>
To test the three conditions (before sticking, during sticking, and after
sticking to end of container), it seems the container should have a limited
height and prevent the item from moving further down.

[smcgruer, 2017-04-19 19:11:16]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/120001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-top.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/120001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-top.html:81:
<div class="sticky box" style="top: 125px;"></div>
On 2017/04/07 18:46:51, flackr wrote:
> To test the three conditions (before sticking, during sticking, and after
> sticking to end of container), it seems the container should have a limited
> height and prevent the item from moving further down.

Done. All tests now test each condition which is much better, but the inline
tests got *real* ugly. Any ideas there are welcome :).

[flackr, 2017-04-20 07:00:40]

On 2017/04/19 19:11:16, smcgruer wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/120001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
> File
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-top.html
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003/diff/120001/third_party/WebKit/Lay...
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/css/css-position-3/position-sticky-top.html:81:
> <div class="sticky box" style="top: 125px;"></div>
> On 2017/04/07 18:46:51, flackr wrote:
> > To test the three conditions (before sticking, during sticking, and after
> > sticking to end of container), it seems the container should have a limited
> > height and prevent the item from moving further down.
> 
> Done. All tests now test each condition which is much better, but the inline
> tests got *real* ugly. Any ideas there are welcome :).

Probably the simpler way of testing these is to change the scroll position in
each example with the examples being identical otherwise. Then you just scroll
to before / during / and after sticking.

[smcgruer, 2017-04-20 19:50:19]

Done.

[flackr, 2017-04-21 01:29:27]

lgtm

[smcgruer, 2017-04-21 13:04:16]

The CQ bit was checked by smcgruer@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-21 13:04:26]

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, 2017-04-21 14:17:45]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-21 14:17:46]

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

[smcgruer, 2017-04-21 14:21:20]

The CQ bit was checked by smcgruer@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-21 14:21:35]

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, 2017-04-21 14:44:03]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 150001, "attempt_start_ts": 1492784480315480,
"parent_rev": "d7a6b51c01f1ad0c3de33a6eb8aa92c0232db1e6", "commit_rev":
"b62b50144a75397c298a1cb49f39a1e87abf665d"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-21 14:44:17]

Description was changed from

==========
Upstream first set of position:sticky tests to WPT

This first CL contains some basic tests of top/bottom/left/right
constraint support.

BUG=699244
==========

to

==========
Upstream first set of position:sticky tests to WPT

This first CL contains some basic tests of top/bottom/left/right
constraint support.

BUG=699244

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2734203003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#466328}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b62b50144a75397c298a1cb49f39...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-04-21 14:44:19]

Committed patchset #9 (id:150001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b62b50144a75397c298a1cb49f39...