Via Phacility support, a user reported an issue which looks exactly like T11997, but affects Differential.
Phacility doesn't have the fix in master yet, but we should make sure we're working around the issue in Differential before we promote.
Description
Description
Related Objects
Related Objects
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
I wasn't immediately able to reproduce this:
- Navigation to inline comment anchor links works correctly for me in Differential at HEAD of master.
- Navigation to inline comment anchor links works correctly for me on meta.phacility.com, which is running Week 50, too.
- The underlying HTML doesn't seem to be structured in a way that would be affected by the Chrome 55 change.
- I tried unified and side-by-side diffs, but no effect.
- I tried comments at the very top of a file (maybe getting hidden by an overflow container?) but no effect.
I followed up with the reporting user to try to figure out what I'm doing differently.
This is what I saw locally when trying to reproduce: proper navigation to the inline (background window) in Chrome 55 (foreground window):
Comment Actions
We haven't received more information about this in about a week and can't reproduce it, so we can't move forward. I'm going to close this until we get new information.
Comment Actions
Is it possible that this issue effects Differential but only for inline-comments that have been ported forward from a previous diff (i.e. the ones that are rendered as slightly faded). I see this issue on this instance with this revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15675, none of the anchor links in the timeline work for me when I use Chrome 55, but I don't see the same issue on reviews where comments are on the most-recent diff (not faded).
Comment Actions
Chrome 56 has merged a fix for this so it should be moot in the not-too-distant future, although I'm not exactly sure what the Chrome release schedule looks like. If this only impacts ghost inlines for a few more weeks it's pretty tempting to just wait for it to resolve itself, but I may be digging around in that code soon so perhaps I'll take a more detailed look.