[webkit-reviews] review granted: [Bug 215807] REGRESSION (r263506): timing of CSS Animation on https://animate.style is incorrect : [Attachment 407189] Patch

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

Simon Fraser (smfr) <simon.fraser at apple.com> has granted Antoine Quint
<graouts at webkit.org>'s request for review:
Bug 215807: REGRESSION (r263506): timing of CSS Animation on
https://animate.style is incorrect
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215807

Attachment 407189: Patch

https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=407189&action=review




--- Comment #3 from Simon Fraser (smfr) <simon.fraser at apple.com> ---
Comment on attachment 407189
  --> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=407189
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=407189&action=review

> Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:11
> +	   In r263506, we added a way for accelerated animations to adhere to
both a timing function set on the
> +	   animation, affecting the timing of the entire animation, as well as
a timing function set on individual
> +	   keyframes, affecting the timing of the animation in a given
interval.

That's a weird way of saying that accelerated animation timing functions were
broken.

> Source/WebCore/animation/KeyframeEffect.cpp:1662
>  Ref<const Animation> KeyframeEffect::backingAnimationForCompositedRenderer()
const

It's weird that this has to exist, and weird that it returns a Ref<const
Animation>.

> LayoutTests/webanimations/accelerated-css-animation-with-easing.html:54
> +    await new Promise(requestAnimationFrame);
> +    await new Promise(requestAnimationFrame);
> +    await new Promise(requestAnimationFrame);

I feel like this test will be flakey.