Firefox bug or bad flex styling?
I really have no idea where to begin solving this.
I have an app with nested flexboxes, each containing a range that has been rotated 270deg.
It works on chrome, but on firefox, it initially loads like this:
As you can see, disabled input type=numbers labeled as PPV(+) and NPV(-) are oddly pushed down. But, if I inspect the element, or resize the window, or other seemingly random triggers, it snaps back into correct positioning, looking the same as chrome:
Pen demonstrating the difference in chrome vs firefox can be seen at:
CodePen
Interestingly, removing either of these two styles negates the different rendering between browsers (both browsers display correctly).
.inputDiv input[type=number] {font-size 1.3rem}
And
.inputDiv > .fuzzyDiv {margin-top: 15px}
Anybody know what's happening here?
html css html5 firefox flexbox
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
add a comment |
I really have no idea where to begin solving this.
I have an app with nested flexboxes, each containing a range that has been rotated 270deg.
It works on chrome, but on firefox, it initially loads like this:
As you can see, disabled input type=numbers labeled as PPV(+) and NPV(-) are oddly pushed down. But, if I inspect the element, or resize the window, or other seemingly random triggers, it snaps back into correct positioning, looking the same as chrome:
Pen demonstrating the difference in chrome vs firefox can be seen at:
CodePen
Interestingly, removing either of these two styles negates the different rendering between browsers (both browsers display correctly).
.inputDiv input[type=number] {font-size 1.3rem}
And
.inputDiv > .fuzzyDiv {margin-top: 15px}
Anybody know what's happening here?
html css html5 firefox flexbox
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
add a comment |
I really have no idea where to begin solving this.
I have an app with nested flexboxes, each containing a range that has been rotated 270deg.
It works on chrome, but on firefox, it initially loads like this:
As you can see, disabled input type=numbers labeled as PPV(+) and NPV(-) are oddly pushed down. But, if I inspect the element, or resize the window, or other seemingly random triggers, it snaps back into correct positioning, looking the same as chrome:
Pen demonstrating the difference in chrome vs firefox can be seen at:
CodePen
Interestingly, removing either of these two styles negates the different rendering between browsers (both browsers display correctly).
.inputDiv input[type=number] {font-size 1.3rem}
And
.inputDiv > .fuzzyDiv {margin-top: 15px}
Anybody know what's happening here?
html css html5 firefox flexbox
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
I really have no idea where to begin solving this.
I have an app with nested flexboxes, each containing a range that has been rotated 270deg.
It works on chrome, but on firefox, it initially loads like this:
As you can see, disabled input type=numbers labeled as PPV(+) and NPV(-) are oddly pushed down. But, if I inspect the element, or resize the window, or other seemingly random triggers, it snaps back into correct positioning, looking the same as chrome:
Pen demonstrating the difference in chrome vs firefox can be seen at:
CodePen
Interestingly, removing either of these two styles negates the different rendering between browsers (both browsers display correctly).
.inputDiv input[type=number] {font-size 1.3rem}
And
.inputDiv > .fuzzyDiv {margin-top: 15px}
Anybody know what's happening here?
html css html5 firefox flexbox
html css html5 firefox flexbox
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
edited Nov 25 '18 at 2:40
Dr. Hakeem
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:59
Dr. HakeemDr. Hakeem
606
606
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Lots going on in your code. Can't dissect all of it right now.
But focus on this rule:
When you toggle off the left: -126px, the elements snaps into place.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53418047%2ffirefox-bug-or-bad-flex-styling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Lots going on in your code. Can't dissect all of it right now.
But focus on this rule:
When you toggle off the left: -126px, the elements snaps into place.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
add a comment |
Lots going on in your code. Can't dissect all of it right now.
But focus on this rule:
When you toggle off the left: -126px, the elements snaps into place.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
add a comment |
Lots going on in your code. Can't dissect all of it right now.
But focus on this rule:
When you toggle off the left: -126px, the elements snaps into place.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
Lots going on in your code. Can't dissect all of it right now.
But focus on this rule:
When you toggle off the left: -126px, the elements snaps into place.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
answered Nov 21 '18 at 23:18
Michael_BMichael_B
147k47235343
147k47235343
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
add a comment |
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
Thanks for looking through the code ... I tried completely removing that line, and despite it breaking some of the rest of the layout, it didn't fix the problem at hand.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 24 '18 at 5:55
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
See if you can reproduce the problem with minimal code in a jsfiddle or codepen demo. Then post that code in your question. Others may then assist, and your question won't be closed for violating the guidelines.
– Michael_B
Nov 24 '18 at 10:50
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
Thanks for the polite tone - I feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it first. I'm still working on cutting things to make it "minimal", but I've updated my question with a link. Found a few things that fix the effect, but still not sure why.
– Dr. Hakeem
Nov 25 '18 at 2:33
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53418047%2ffirefox-bug-or-bad-flex-styling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
