Skip to content

Fix node ownership when display: contents is used (#1924)#1924

Closed
j-piasecki wants to merge 1 commit into
react:mainfrom
j-piasecki:@jpiasecki/fix-contents-crash
Closed

Fix node ownership when display: contents is used (#1924)#1924
j-piasecki wants to merge 1 commit into
react:mainfrom
j-piasecki:@jpiasecki/fix-contents-crash

Conversation

@j-piasecki

@j-piasecki j-piasecki commented Apr 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary:
X-link: react/react-native#56422

Changelog: [GENERAL][FIXED] Fixed Yoga node ownership when display: contents is used in absolutely positioned subtrees

Fixes an edge case where nodes with display: contents weren't cloned properly inside absolutely positioned subtrees.

Adds a test case covering this scenario.

Reviewed By: NickGerleman

Differential Revision: D100581579

Pulled By: j-piasecki

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Apr 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
yoga-website Ready Ready Preview, Comment Apr 21, 2026 5:02am

Request Review

@meta-codesync

meta-codesync Bot commented Apr 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@j-piasecki has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this in D100581579.

Summary:
X-link: react/react-native#56422

Changelog: [GENERAL][FIXED] Fixed Yoga node ownership when `display: contents` is used in absolutely positioned subtrees

Fixes an edge case where nodes with `display: contents` weren't cloned properly inside absolutely positioned subtrees.

Adds a test case covering this scenario.


Reviewed By: NickGerleman

Differential Revision: D100581579

Pulled By: j-piasecki
@meta-codesync meta-codesync Bot changed the title Fix node ownership when display: contents is used Fix node ownership when display: contents is used (#1924) Apr 21, 2026
@j-piasecki j-piasecki force-pushed the @jpiasecki/fix-contents-crash branch from e77f74c to 4cb9bdd Compare April 21, 2026 05:01
@meta-codesync

meta-codesync Bot commented Apr 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@j-piasecki has exported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view the originating Diff in D100581579.

@meta-codesync meta-codesync Bot closed this in 966107f Apr 21, 2026
meta-codesync Bot pushed a commit to react/react-native that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2026
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: #56422

Changelog: [GENERAL][FIXED] Fixed Yoga node ownership when `display: contents` is used in absolutely positioned subtrees

Fixes an edge case where nodes with `display: contents` weren't cloned properly inside absolutely positioned subtrees.

Adds a test case covering this scenario.

X-link: react/yoga#1924

Reviewed By: NickGerleman

Differential Revision: D100581579

Pulled By: j-piasecki

fbshipit-source-id: e05e9a4076bd11a71be438ef910a262044659a9b
@meta-codesync

meta-codesync Bot commented Apr 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@j-piasecki merged this pull request in 966107f.

gabrieldonadel pushed a commit to react/react-native that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2026
#57241)

* Expose cleanupContentsNodesRecursively for backport

Backport prerequisite: make cleanupContentsNodesRecursively externally
linkable and declare it in CalculateLayout.h so AbsoluteLayout.cpp can
call it. This mirrors the relevant slice of #55876 (26cef64), which
is not present on this branch, and is required before applying #56422
and #57103.

* Fix node ownership when `display: contents` is used (#56422)

Summary:
Pull Request resolved: #56422

Changelog: [GENERAL][FIXED] Fixed Yoga node ownership when `display: contents` is used in absolutely positioned subtrees

Fixes an edge case where nodes with `display: contents` weren't cloned properly inside absolutely positioned subtrees.

Adds a test case covering this scenario.

X-link: react/yoga#1924

Reviewed By: NickGerleman

Differential Revision: D100581579

Pulled By: j-piasecki

fbshipit-source-id: e05e9a4076bd11a71be438ef910a262044659a9b

* Fix `display: contents` nodes having `hasNewLayout` set incorrectly (#57103)

Summary:
Pull Request resolved: #57103

Changelog: [General][Fixed] Fixed `display: contents` nodes having `hasNewLayout` set incorrectly

`cleanupContentsNodesRecursively` unconditionally sets `hasNewLayout=true` on `display: contents` children, including on code paths where their parent's layout was not actually performed in this pass. The stale flag can survive across layout passes and, in clone-on-write renderers (e.g. React Native Fabric), be observed by a subsequent pass whose parent was cloned but whose layout was served from cache, leaving the contents child's owner pointing at the previous parent revision.

There are two paths through which the cleanup could stamp a contents child whose parent's `hasNewLayout` would end up false:

1. Measure-phase visit. Inside `calculateLayoutImpl`, the cleanup ran with no knowledge of `performLayout`. When the parent's `calculateLayoutImpl` was invoked only with `performLayout=false` (cache miss on measure, cache hit on layout), the cleanup stamped contents children even though the parent itself never had its `hasNewLayout` set.

2. Absolute-layout walk. `layoutAbsoluteDescendants` walks every static layout descendant of the containing block - including ones whose own `calculateLayoutImpl` was skipped via the layout-phase cache. The cleanup invoked along that walk unconditionally stamped contents children, but the parent's `hasNewLayout` was only updated when the recursion actually found new layout downstream.

In both cases, the result is the same invariant violation: a contents node with `hasNewLayout=true` whose parent has `hasNewLayout=false`. A consumer iterating the tree via `hasNewLayout` skips the parent and never clears the stale flag.

X-link: react/yoga#1970

Test Plan:
Added `YGContentsNodeHasNewLayoutTest.cpp` with regression tests:
- `contents_child_hasNewLayout_not_stamped_on_measure_only_visit` - pins the measure-phase fix
- `absolute_descendant_through_contents_is_reachable_via_hasNewLayout` - pins the positive case for absolute-layout path
- `absolute_phase_cleanup_does_not_stamp_when_parent_layout_skipped` - pins the negative case for absolute-layout path

Reviewed By: javache

Differential Revision: D107854528

Pulled By: j-piasecki

fbshipit-source-id: cae5e889622296e8b6380a6428509b5ffea3e9ae
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant