Skip to content

Clone into all descendant selectedcontent elements#12263

Open
josepharhar wants to merge 23 commits intowhatwg:mainfrom
josepharhar:selectedcontentredo
Open

Clone into all descendant selectedcontent elements#12263
josepharhar wants to merge 23 commits intowhatwg:mainfrom
josepharhar:selectedcontentredo

Conversation

@josepharhar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@josepharhar josepharhar commented Mar 16, 2026

This PR changes several things:

  • Instead of the first selectedcontent element in DOM order staying up to date, now all descendant selectedcontent elements of the select element will be kept up to date.
  • Rewrites the selectedness setting algorithm to prevent setting selectedness of options which haven't had their insertion steps run yet in order to match implementations and to update selectedcontent elements.
  • Creates a list of selectedcontent elements to update before doing actual DOM operations.

Fixes #12096
Fixes #11880
Fixes #11883
Fixes #11825

(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)


/form-elements.html ( diff )

This PR improves the "clear a select's non-primary selectedcontent
elements" algorithm by making it create a list of selectedcontent
elements to modify separately from modifying them in order to prevent
the list of elements to change while iterating.

Fixes whatwg#11880
This PR makes sure that the contents of the selectedcontent element stay
up to date when the selected option is changed in the selectedness
setting algorithm.

This issue was found here:
web-platform-tests/wpt#55849 (comment)
In order to make the selectedness setting algorithm match
implementations, this PR makes the selectedness setting algorithm avoid
changing the selectedness of option elements which haven't ran their
insertion steps yet by checking whether the options have their cached
nearest ancestor select element assigned yet or not.

This was discussed here: whatwg#11825
…contentredo

Merged the PRs, now I need to do the selectedcontent rewrite to clone
into all descendant selectedcontent elements.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@annevk annevk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @josepharhar! Here's some minor editorial feedback to start. Will try to verify these changes by implementing them.

Comment thread source Outdated
Comment on lines +59315 to +59326
<li><p>Let <var>descendantSelectedcontents</var> be « ».</p></li>

<li><p>Let <var>option</var> be the first <code>option</code> in <var>select</var>'s <span
data-x="concept-select-option-list">list of options</span> whose <span
data-x="concept-option-selectedness">selectedness</span> is true, if any such <code>option</code>
exists, otherwise null.</p></li>
<li>
<p>For each <var>descendant</var> of <var>select</var>'s <span
data-x="descendant">descendants</span>:</p>

<li><p>If <var>option</var> is null, then run <span>clear a <code>selectedcontent</code></span>
given <var>selectedcontent</var>.</p></li>
<ol>
<li><p>If <var>descendant</var> is a <code>selectedcontent</code> element, then <span
data-x="list append">append</span> <var>descendant</var> to
<var>descendantSelectedcontents</var>.</p></li>
</ol>
</li>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't need a loop for this. We can state this declaratively:

Let selectedContents be select's descendants that are selectedcontent elements, in tree order.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, I have a more substantive question here. Why doesn't this skip disabled selectedcontent elements immediately?

I think the selectedcontent-nested.html test currently expects this, but it seems wasteful and best avoided.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't need a loop for this. We can state this declaratively:

Done, thanks

Also, I have a more substantive question here. Why doesn't this skip disabled selectedcontent elements immediately?

Disabled selectedcontents will be skipped deeper in the algorithms called by this one - "clone an option into a selectedcontent" and "clear a selectedcontent" both check if the selectedcontent is disabled before modifying the DOM, and return early.

We could add a step to skip disabled selectedcontents here, but it would functionally be redundant, unless I'm misreading something. What do you think? Can we leave it as-is?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, yes I see how it would change the behavior to check if the selectedcontent elements are disabled before adding them to the list. I'll change the spec here and update the WPT.

Comment thread source Outdated
Comment thread source Outdated
chromium-wpt-export-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Apr 8, 2026
This changes the behavior when selecting a new option in the case that
there are nested selectedcontent elements inside the select. Before, the
disabled selectedcontent would get cloned, but now it won't.

Context: whatwg/html#12263 (comment)

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I9afd550f21787b7daefb48c5a76712b5899e5b42
beckysiegel pushed a commit to chromium/chromium that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2026
This changes the behavior when selecting a new option in the case that
there are nested selectedcontent elements inside the select. Before, the
disabled selectedcontent would get cloned, but now it won't.

Context: whatwg/html#12263 (comment)

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I9afd550f21787b7daefb48c5a76712b5899e5b42
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7737623
Reviewed-by: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1611875}
chromium-wpt-export-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2026
This changes the behavior when selecting a new option in the case that
there are nested selectedcontent elements inside the select. Before, the
disabled selectedcontent would get cloned, but now it won't.

Context: whatwg/html#12263 (comment)

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I9afd550f21787b7daefb48c5a76712b5899e5b42
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7737623
Reviewed-by: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1611875}
chromium-wpt-export-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2026
This changes the behavior when selecting a new option in the case that
there are nested selectedcontent elements inside the select. Before, the
disabled selectedcontent would get cloned, but now it won't.

Context: whatwg/html#12263 (comment)

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I9afd550f21787b7daefb48c5a76712b5899e5b42
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7737623
Reviewed-by: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1611875}
Comment thread source Outdated
@josepharhar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I updated this PR to avoid updating the selectedcontent element in the insertion or removal steps of the option element as per this discussion: #12096 (comment)

@jnjaeschke
Copy link
Copy Markdown

jnjaeschke commented Apr 13, 2026

It seems that the post-connection steps are sync, while the removing steps queue a microtask. I think it would be more consistent if both were queueing a microtask?

Also -- I think that reset would now also run script because it clones into selectedcontent, which I think it shouldn't (at least in Gecko it is marked as not script running). Should we also queue a microtask here?

@josepharhar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

It seems that the post-connection steps are sync, while the removing steps queue a microtask. I think it would be more consistent if both were queueing a microtask?

Yes it would be more consistent that way, but since the selectedcontent element was designed to be as synchronous as possible I figured that this was a good way to keep it synchronous more of the time. I also think that inserting an option which become selected is more common than removing the currently selected option. If others think that both should do a microtask, I'm ok with that.

Also -- I think that reset would now also run script because it clones into selectedcontent, which I think it shouldn't (at least in Gecko it is marked as not script running). Should we also queue a microtask here?

Yes, reset causes cloning into selectedcontent. Why should reset not be script running?

@jnjaeschke
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Yes, reset causes cloning into selectedcontent. Why should reset not be script running?
Sorry, I got misled by gecko implementation details.

Comment thread source Outdated
Comment thread source Outdated
lando-worker Bot pushed a commit to mozilla-firefox/firefox that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2026
…tent list, a=testonly

Automatic update from web-platform-tests
Check disabled when building selectedcontent list

This changes the behavior when selecting a new option in the case that
there are nested selectedcontent elements inside the select. Before, the
disabled selectedcontent would get cloned, but now it won't.

Context: whatwg/html#12263 (comment)

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I9afd550f21787b7daefb48c5a76712b5899e5b42
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7737623
Reviewed-by: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1611875}

--

wpt-commits: aeaa6a252fb817d54c7382a3179d38db60c40a9d
wpt-pr: 59059
chromium-wpt-export-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2026
Modifying the DOM by updating selectedcontent elements during insertion
or removal steps is bad for security reasons. We already removed the
selectedcontent element removal steps which was one way this can happen,
but the option's InsertedInto and RemovedFrom methods may change which
option is selected, which will synchronously update the selectedcontent
element.

This patch fixes this by moving the selectedcontent updating to the
post-insertion steps for insertion, and by using a microtask to update
on removal if needed.

This matches the behavior in the spec PR: whatwg/html#12263

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I42bb94c6eace93445cfbc816529e42ca8a561b94
beckysiegel pushed a commit to chromium/chromium that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2026
Modifying the DOM by updating selectedcontent elements during insertion
or removal steps is bad for security reasons. We already removed the
selectedcontent element removal steps which was one way this can happen,
but the option's InsertedInto and RemovedFrom methods may change which
option is selected, which will synchronously update the selectedcontent
element.

This patch fixes this by moving the selectedcontent updating to the
post-insertion steps for insertion, and by using a microtask to update
on removal if needed.

This matches the behavior in the spec PR: whatwg/html#12263

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I42bb94c6eace93445cfbc816529e42ca8a561b94
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7745871
Reviewed-by: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1622241}
chromium-wpt-export-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2026
Modifying the DOM by updating selectedcontent elements during insertion
or removal steps is bad for security reasons. We already removed the
selectedcontent element removal steps which was one way this can happen,
but the option's InsertedInto and RemovedFrom methods may change which
option is selected, which will synchronously update the selectedcontent
element.

This patch fixes this by moving the selectedcontent updating to the
post-insertion steps for insertion, and by using a microtask to update
on removal if needed.

This matches the behavior in the spec PR: whatwg/html#12263

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I42bb94c6eace93445cfbc816529e42ca8a561b94
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7745871
Reviewed-by: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1622241}
chromium-wpt-export-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2026
Modifying the DOM by updating selectedcontent elements during insertion
or removal steps is bad for security reasons. We already removed the
selectedcontent element removal steps which was one way this can happen,
but the option's InsertedInto and RemovedFrom methods may change which
option is selected, which will synchronously update the selectedcontent
element.

This patch fixes this by moving the selectedcontent updating to the
post-insertion steps for insertion, and by using a microtask to update
on removal if needed.

This matches the behavior in the spec PR: whatwg/html#12263

Bug: 458113204
Change-Id: I42bb94c6eace93445cfbc816529e42ca8a561b94
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7745871
Reviewed-by: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1622241}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

3 participants