Bug 25881 - [PATCH] relative font-size gets calculated twice.
Summary: [PATCH] relative font-size gets calculated twice.
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Fop - Now in Jira
Classification: Unclassified
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: trunk
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: fop-dev
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-01-03 21:03 UTC by Finn Bock
Modified: 2012-04-01 06:30 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachments
A unified diff against HEAD. (854 bytes, patch)
2004-01-03 21:04 UTC, Finn Bock 		Details | Diff
A testcase .fo (518 bytes, text/plain)
2004-01-03 21:04 UTC, Finn Bock 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Finn Bock 2004-01-03 21:03:56 UTC 
When the font-size property has a relative value that depends on font-size, the 
computation is done twice.

The testcase uses font-size="2em" which should be a 24pt font, but the result 
is shown in 48pt.
Comment 1 Finn Bock 2004-01-03 21:04:32 UTC 
Created attachment 9787 [details]
A unified diff against HEAD.
Comment 2 Finn Bock 2004-01-03 21:04:48 UTC 
Created attachment 9788 [details]
A testcase .fo
Comment 3 Glen Mazza 2004-01-04 05:35:21 UTC 
Finn,

I ran this with your sample .FO before and after applying the patch, and saw no 
difference in the output.

Two days ago, however, I added in Simon's patch preventing the duplication of 
processing base-only attributes (including "font-size") in 
ConvertAttributeToProperty():

            if (subPropertyName == null) { // base attribute only found
                /* Do nothing if the base property has already been created.
                 * This is e.g. the case when a compound attribute was
                 * specified before the base attribute; in these cases
                 * the base attribute was already created in 
                 * findBaseProperty()
                 */
                if (getExplicitBaseProp(basePropertyName) != null) {
                    return;
                }

I think Simon's change already fixes the problem you're mentioning here--so 
your patch may not be needed.  Certainly, at least on my side, it appears the 
second processing of font-size is being ignored now.  

Comments?

Thanks,
Glen
Comment 4 Finn Bock 2004-01-04 21:36:19 UTC 
Glen, you are absolutely right, Simon's patch fixes this problem too.

I'm sorry about the inconvenience.
Comment 5 Glenn Adams 2012-04-01 06:30:31 UTC 
batch transition pre-FOP1.0 resolved+fixed bugs to closed+fixed