New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 591139 link

Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Fixed
Owner:
Closed: Jun 2016
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Mac
Pri: 2
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

Don't emit warning "-webkit-box-shadow is used, but box-shadow is supported." if both are set

Reported by krinklem...@gmail.com, Mar 1 2016

Issue description

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/51.0.2664.0 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce the problem:
Given the following stylesheet:

.referencetooltip li {
        border: #080086 2px solid;
        max-width: 260px;
        padding: 10px 8px 13px 8px;
        margin: 0px;
        background-color: #F7F7F7;
        -webkit-box-shadow: 2px 4px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);
        -moz-box-shadow: 2px 4px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);
        box-shadow: 2px 4px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);
}
.client-js body .referencetooltip li li {
        border: none;
        -webkit-box-shadow: none;
        -moz-box-shadow: none;
        box-shadow: none;
}

The warning was emitted twice as part of the "Web Page Performance" audit in Chrome Dev Tools.

What is the expected behavior?

What went wrong?
The warning should only be emitted if the standard "box-shadow" wasn't specified. Or perhaps it could emit it if the standard rule was before the prefixed rule. But if the rule follows the standard practice of listing them in the right order, then the -webkit-box-shadow shouldn't apply, and neither should the warning.

Did this work before? N/A 

Chrome version: 51.0.2664.0  Channel: canary
OS Version: OS X 10.10.5
Flash Version: Shockwave Flash 21.0 r0
 
capture.png
54.7 KB View Download
Cc: rnimmagadda@chromium.org
Labels: Needs-Feedback
Attached is the output observed with the code provided in the description.

@krinklemail: Could you please provide us the sample file to repro this issue from our side, which would help us in triaging it further.

Also, could you please provide us the screen-recording for better understanding of this issue.

Thank you.
Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 12.41.26 PM.png
54.4 KB View Download
@rnimmagadda Hi. The sample I provided and this issue in general is about CSS, not JavaScript. These are different things :)

There is a screen shot in the opening post. Taken from the Audits panel when running the "Web Page Performance" audit on a page with the given CSS sample.

Comment 3 by alph@chromium.org, Mar 8 2016

Owner: paulir...@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Unconfirmed)
Thanks for reporting. Paul, do you think we should do that?
Status: Started (was: Assigned)
Yeah this audit is definitely incorrect.  In general I think this area is too difficult for us to maintain worthwhile recommendations. 
Autoprefixer-based tools are a much better choice for this sorta thing.

i've put up a CL to remove this: https://codereview.chromium.org/1774773003
Status: Fixed (was: Started)

Sign in to add a comment