Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update actions/checkout requirement to v2.3.4 #2

Closed

Conversation

dependabot[bot]
Copy link

@dependabot dependabot bot commented on behalf of github Mar 16, 2021

Updates the requirements on actions/checkout to permit the latest version.

Release notes

Sourced from actions/checkout's releases.

v2.3.4

Changelog

Sourced from actions/checkout's changelog.

Changelog

v2.3.1

v2.3.0

v2.2.0

v2.1.1

  • Changes to support GHES (here and here)

v2.1.0

v2.0.0

v2 (beta)

  • Improved fetch performance
    • The default behavior now fetches only the SHA being checked-out
  • Script authenticated git commands
    • Persists with.token in the local git config
    • Enables your scripts to run authenticated git commands
    • Post-job cleanup removes the token
    • Coming soon: Opt out by setting with.persist-credentials to false
  • Creates a local branch
    • No longer detached HEAD when checking out a branch
    • A local branch is created with the corresponding upstream branch set
  • Improved layout

... (truncated)

Commits

Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.


Dependabot commands and options

You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:

  • @dependabot rebase will rebase this PR
  • @dependabot recreate will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
  • @dependabot merge will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
  • @dependabot squash and merge will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
  • @dependabot cancel merge will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
  • @dependabot reopen will reopen this PR if it is closed
  • @dependabot close will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
  • @dependabot ignore this major version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
  • @dependabot ignore this minor version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
  • @dependabot ignore this dependency will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)

@dependabot dependabot bot added dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file github_actions Pull requests that update Github_actions code labels Mar 16, 2021
@dependabot @github
Copy link
Author

dependabot bot commented on behalf of github Apr 14, 2021

Looks like actions/checkout is up-to-date now, so this is no longer needed.

@dependabot dependabot bot closed this Apr 14, 2021
@dependabot dependabot bot deleted the dependabot/github_actions/actions/checkout-v2.3.4 branch April 14, 2021 20:42
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2021
…eb-platform-tests#28617)

Subresource Web Bundles.

The problem is: when Web Bundle fetching fails due to a network error,
Subresource fetch doesn't fail forever.
One such case (subresource-loading-cors-error test) was
timing out previously but passes successfully with this change.

This CL also adds 2 WPT tests:
1. subresource-loading-network-error.https.tentative.sub.html
2. subresource-loading-web-bundle-fetch-failed.https.tentative.html

Test #1 is a scenario with a different network error than the CORS
one, but with the same issue of subresource fetching timing out
without the change. It passes successfully after the change.

Test #2 is a scenario with a Web bundle not found error, which is
not directly influenced by the code added in this CL, but it expands
the test coverage which was found to be lacking the error cases before.

Bug: 1168449

Change-Id: Ia3abb967e36274becc86e317bc51b1272d3ae679
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2826001
Reviewed-by: Tsuyoshi Horo <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Hayato Ito <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kinuko Yasuda <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Miras Myrzakerey <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#875532}

Co-authored-by: Miras Myrzakerey <[email protected]>
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2021
1. Use GetWithoutInvalidation() instead of Get() in DCHECKs.
We should never call Get() inside of a DCHECK(), because this can
lead to a different code path depending on whether DCHECKs are enabled.

2. Get() should not cause immediate side effects. At most, it should
queue up an invalidation for later processing.

Fixing #1 and #2 were required in order to get past a first set of
errors introduced by the new test.

3. The actual fix -- avoid infinite loop by calling a special
new SlotAssignmentWillChange(), rather than ChildrenChanged(),
where a minimal GetWithoutInvalidation() is called that does not
lead to IsShadowContentRelevantForAccessibility() => FirstChild() =>
RecalcAssignedNodes() => ChildrenChanged() ... (infinite loop).

A simpler potential fix is in CL:2965317 but requires more
research. It's also mentioned in a TODO comment.

Bug: 1219311
Change-Id: Iafaa289f241a851404ce352715d2970172a2e5f8
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2961158
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Dominic Mazzoni <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Aaron Leventhal <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#892778}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 8, 2021
This is a manual reland of
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3247449

The difference from the previous reland is that the browser tests now
include 2 separate timeouts and a double rAF, to ensure that the
presentation timestamp taken is far enough from both the time the first
frame is sent as well as from the time the second frame is sent.
More importantly, the test now actually is looking at the UKM metric,
rather than at the histogram.

Original change's description:
> [LCP] Add animated image support
>
> This CL adds support for better handling of animated images in LCP:
> * A new attribute is exposing the first animated frame's paint time
> (behind a flag).
> * `startTime` is not changed.
> * The PageLoadMetrics reported for LCP are set to that first frame paint
> time for animated images (behind another flag).
> * Entries are not emitted until the image is loaded.
>
> Relevant spec issue:
> w3c/largest-contentful-paint#83

Bug: 1260953
Change-Id: I34070bd90a74ed44281da63b547f13d9669f389b
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3250690
Reviewed-by: Nicolás Peña Moreno <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Yoav Weiss <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#936516}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2022
The previous patch:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3371612/6
checked an AnonymousIframe and an Iframe wasn't sharing the same
partition.

This one test:
- Two sibling same-origin anonymous iframe share the same partition.
- Two same-origin nested anonymous iframe share the same partition.
- Two same-origin anonymous iframe from different popup do not share
  the same partition.

Bug: 1285331,1226469
Change-Id: I7ebc3a5bbb5e1f12d0ceaac9d89c1deb30174a37
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3379159
Reviewed-by: Andrew Williams <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Arthur Sonzogni <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#960946}

Co-authored-by: Arthur Sonzogni <[email protected]>
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2022
By adding new exhaustive tests under ordering/, it was revealed that the ordering between navigatesuccess/navigateerror and the committed/finished promises was not always consistent:

1. Simply adding a currentchange event handler would cause microtasks to run during commit, which changed some ordering.

2. Calling transitionWhile() would take us from the zero-promise case to the 1+-promise case in ScriptPromise::All(). As the new comment explains, both the spec and implementation have an observably-different fast path for the 0-promise case which caused changes in ordering.

In the course of fixing this, I found out that the did_finish_before_commit_ code in app_history_api_navigation.{h,cc} was actually not a mitigation for the case it stated, where promises passed to transitionWhile() would settle faster than the browser-process roundtrip for same-document traversals. That is in fact impossible, since we only fire the navigate event after the browser-process roundtrip has completed. Instead, they were a mitigation for (1).

This commit then ensures consistent ordering, tested with new rather-exhaustive tests, in the following manner:

* We move the firing of currentchange to before resolving the committed promise. This eliminates (1) and allows us to delete the did_finish_before_commit_ tracking.

* We always ensure we pass 1+ promises to ScriptPromise::All(). This eliminates (2).

A consequence of this is that we are now more likely to get rejected finished promises, in cases like

    await appHistory.navigate("#1").committed;
    await appHistory.navigate("#2").committed;

Before, the finished promise for the #1 navigation would go through the fast path per (2), and fulfill before the navigation to #2 canceled it. Now that does not happen, so code like the above will give an unhandled promise rejection for #1's finished promise.

To avoid this, we unconditionally mark finished promises as handled. This follows some web platform precedent, e.g. stream closed promises, where the promise is one of several information channels (in this case the developer might also find out via the AbortSignal or the navigateerror event). We do *not* do this for the committed promise though, as if a commit fails, that's probably something more deeply wrong, and cannot be ignored.

All of these changes will require spec updates.

For the tests, we introduce a new ordering/ directory which contains cross-cutting ordering tests, and we consolidate a few tests into the newly-introduced variant-driven exhaustive ones. A couple of other tests were affected by these changes too or fixed as a drive-by.

Change-Id: I8a50ca28d009e0a8a2c94331cd17f29b0a8dc463
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3405377
Reviewed-by: Nate Chapin <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Domenic Denicola <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#963772}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 17, 2022
This test fails with off-by-one values on the green background. This
is attempt #2 to fix that, by adding fuzziness.

Bug: 1323293
Change-Id: I9f51f257ef0064b6cd144a32ae01b148ed881112
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3638193
Reviewed-by: Philip Rogers <[email protected]>
Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1001695}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 18, 2023
In the case that a popover contains an invoker that points back to that
invoker, the tab navigation code used to get confused. E.g.:

```
<div id="menu" popover>
  <button autofocus popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #1</button>
  <button popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #2</button>
</div>
```

In this case, trying to tab between the first and second button would
break because the second button appeared to be an invoker for a new
popover, when in reality it was an invoker for the same popover.

Fixed: 1399601
Bug: 1307772
Change-Id: I276370d7c8eee0dd32f0c89da202a0d3777bf911
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4133482
Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <[email protected]>
Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1089080}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
…on discrete properties."

Original patch: https://crrev.com/c/4219315
Revert 1: https://crrev.com/c/4305045
Reland 1: https://crrev.com/c/4304846
Revert 2: https://crrev.com/c/4307944

Despite the most relaxed value in TestExpectations for
discrete-no-interpolation.tentative.html, some bots are still breaking
for reasons I don't understand. I am going to remove the test completely
until it stops crashing or failing. This patch will still be useful
despite the lack of tests because other people are doing prototyping
work that builds on this change.

Bug: 1399631, 1413556
Change-Id: Ic08f16d6436e37acc8947a94ca699c1735fe221f
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4308075
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <[email protected]>
Auto-Submit: Joey Arhar <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1114026}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
…sitions on discrete properties.""

This reverts commit 268250b.
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
…les transitions on discrete properties.""" (web-platform-tests#38936)

This reverts commit 78f70fd.
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
Most of the logic now lives on NaviagateEvent itself (in React()
and ReactDone()), which the new NavigateEvent::Reaction is a minimal
callback function wrapper.

Change-Id: Id31152b048fc7166a8ac45bda7e136a2143fd56f
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4369772
Reviewed-by: Domenic Denicola <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Nate Chapin <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1123074}
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2023
…each time of the loop

There are 2 possible scenarios which are not handled by the method.

1. Moving content node to new `<blockquote>` has already been moved to outside
of the editing host.
2. There is no container to insert new `<blockquote>`, e.g., in an inline
editing host.

In the case #1, we should ignore the ex-child node.  In the case #2, we should
abort it.  Note that Chrome inserts `<blockquote>` even if there is no proper
container.  However, such behavior is disagreed in interop-2023.  Therefore,
it's okay just to abort it for now.

Depends on D180781

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D180782

bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1756237
gecko-commit: 42f3f3ab11b47f1d56d8bcd6a128398539dd1f23
gecko-reviewers: m_kato
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2023
…eb-platform-tests#40504)

* [wdspec] browsingContext.print: fix rounding error in page.py test

[pytest](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/7a087d54be8b6c0ca0181a86dc1ff0b28461c383/webdriver/tests/support/image.py)
uses:

    def cm_to_px(cm): return round(cm * 96 / 2.54)

[js](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/7a087d54be8b6c0ca0181a86dc1ff0b28461c383/tools/wptrunner/wptrunner/print_pdf_runner.html)
uses:

    const viewport = page.getViewport({ scale: 96. / 72. });
    ...
    canvas.height = viewport.height;
    canvas.width = viewport.width;

This produces a rounding error, even though the dimension is correct:

    >       assert cm_to_px(expected_dimensions["height"]) == height
    E       assert 454 == 453
    E         +454
    E         -453

The inconsistency of rounding in both ends becomes clear when we
eliminate "round" in the pytest side:

    >       assert cm_to_px(expected_dimensions["height"]) == height
    E       assert 453.54330708661416 == 453
    E         +453.54330708661416
    E         -453

There are multiple ways to fix this issue.

Option #1: Use "floor" instead of "round" in pytest.

Option #2: Use a range in the assertion comparison, allowing a
difference of up to +-1.0. This is what this PR does.

The comparison is performed in
[`assert_pdf_dimensions`](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/b6107cc1ac8b9c2800b4c8e58af719b8e4d9b8db/webdriver/tests/support/fixtures_bidi.py#L210).

The problematic part is .96 / .72 which evaluates to 4/3 = 1.333333....

* use floor in cm_to_px instead of round

* compare to floor and to round instead of a range

* Revert "compare to floor and to round instead of a range"

This reverts commit 63f894e.

* Revert "use floor in cm_to_px instead of round"

This reverts commit 7e65d91.
mrego pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2024
…rners

We had two issues:
1.  Before we had fast rounded corners, we always created mask layers
for rounded corner clips, and the mask layer made the scroll begin
unreliable and fall back to the main thread. With fast rounded corners,
the scrolls were treated as reliable without checking if the point is
in or out of the rounded corners.
2. If the scroller has a rounded corner by itself (instead of from an
ancestor), as we only create InnerBorderRadiusClip for the contents,
the compositor doesn't actually know which part of the layer bounds
is transparent to hit test (e.g. if the scroller has a border which
is outside of the InnerBorderRadiusClip). Now with HitTestOpaqueness,
such layers have HitTestOpaqueness::kMixed.

This CL changes the behavior of
LayerTreeImpl::FindLayersUpToFirstOpaqueToHitTest (renamed from
FindLayerUpToFirstScrollableOrOpaqueToHitTest):
- For issue #1: LayerImpl::OpaqueToHitTest() also checks whether the
  layer is affected by any fast rounded corners;
- For issue #2: FindLayerUpToFirstOpaqueToHitTest checks only
  OpaqueToHitTest() (without checking IsScrollerOrScrollbar())
  because a hit test on a scrollable layer is reliable only if it's
  opaque to hit test.

Bug: 40277896
Change-Id: I1acb16f2c6790760661e8239ea1599035f83ea51
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5466909
Commit-Queue: Xianzhu Wang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Steve Kobes <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1291538}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file github_actions Pull requests that update Github_actions code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants