Setting parent element to visibility:hidden after setting child to visibility:visible hides entire element |
||||||||||
Issue descriptionUserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.62 Safari/537.36 Steps to reproduce the problem: 1. Go to photos.google.com 2. Click on the "Sharing" tab in the left nav 3. Open a shared album 4. Notice that the One Google Bar on the top right is hidden 5. If a reflow is triggered on the page (eg. browser resize), the One Google Bar becomes visible What is the expected behavior? The One Google Bar should be visible What went wrong? On client side navigation to shared albums on Google Photos, we set the visibility on the OGB to be visible, then we set the visibility of it's parent element, the app bar to be hidden. The fact that the parent element's visibility is set to hidden after setting the child to visible is causing the entire element to be hidden. If a child element is set to be visible, it should be visible despite the ordering of when its parent's visibility is being set. Did this work before? Yes 61.0.3163.100 Does this work in other browsers? Yes Chrome version: 62.0.3202.62 Channel: n/a OS Version: Flash Version:
,
Oct 27 2017
,
Oct 27 2017
Hey Chrome team, wondering if we have a ETA for when this might get fixed. This is causing a prod breakage on Google Photos when using Chrome 62, would be great if we can fix soon before Chrome 62 is rolled out to more users.
,
Oct 27 2017
,
Oct 28 2017
This issue is also giving production issue for BlueConic, see https://support.blueconic.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005492269-Chrome-62-issue-causes-empty-navigation-pages.
,
Oct 30 2017
Able to reproduce the issue on windows 10, ubuntu 14.04 and Mac OS 10.12.6 using chrome M62 #62.0.3202.75 and is fixed in latest bet , dev and canary channels. Using the per-revision bisect providing the reverse bisect results, Good build: 63.0.3226.0 (Revision: 504841). Bad build: 63.0.3225.0 (Revision: 504540). You are probably looking for a change made after 504560 (known good), but no later than 504561 (first known bad). CHANGELOG URL: The script might not always return single CL as suspect as some perf builds might get missing due to failure. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/a9ba55c8571ab0d2624c83d413ccc7215a185f51..9f0c480da9cb188c82e16e6c6751875a60a114cf Review URL : https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/9f0c480da9cb188c82e16e6c6751875a60a114cf From the CL above, assigning the issue to the concern owner @Rune Lillesveen- Could you please merge the fix to M62 . Note : Assigning it to the reviewers as the owner is not available in the list. Thanks!
,
Oct 30 2017
I only reverted the first iteration of this CL (which is a reland), I have no idea what's going on. Assigning to the actual reviewer of that CL.
,
Oct 30 2017
FYI we're introducing a temporary workaround on Google Photos side until this is resolved, this should land on prod today. The workaround consists of applying 'position: fixed' and removing it on the next frame to trigger a repaint/reflow when you land on the shared album.
,
Oct 30 2017
,
Oct 30 2017
hdodda@chromium.org, Can you perform a bisect looking at the change between 63 and 64 as we reverted the CL in question in 64? Just to make sure that I have a correct understanding of the bug.
,
Oct 31 2017
@je, and others in need of a fast workaround, a global `*{transition: visibility 0.01s}` in CSS should do the trick and avoid a lot of code refactoring.
,
Nov 6 2017
THis is fixed on M63
,
Nov 29 2017
,
Dec 4 2017
Can we get an explanation on why this is suddenly marked as 'WonFix' without explanation when this was previously noted as fixed for the M63 release? We were relying on a fix for this being rolled out.
,
Dec 5 2017
Sorry I should have been clearer there, The bug was marked as Fixed since the issue didn't repro on 63. However since no fix was landed that was the correct status to mark the bug as. The test case in the original filing shouldn't repro in 63 (which should be hitting stable soon.)
,
Dec 7 2017
I've been waiting for a fix with the release of 63, as one of my sites suffers the same problem. 63.0.3239.84 did not fix the problem, and it is definitely still being reproduced.
,
Dec 7 2017
I confirm. We have same problems on 63. The bug didn't fixed yet
,
Dec 7 2017
Could you please file a bug again with a test case? Since the original issue is not reproducable a new test case will help us track it down.
,
Dec 7 2017
,
Dec 8 2017
New issue raised 793192 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=793192 |
||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||||||||
Comment 1 by gracec@chromium.org
, Oct 27 2017Status: Untriaged (was: Unconfirmed)