Change motion path <ray> <contain> test references as per spec change

[danielsakhapov]

Test List

https://wpt.fyi//css/motion/offset-path-ray-contain-001-ref.html
https://wpt.fyi//css/motion/offset-path-ray-contain-002-ref.html
https://wpt.fyi//css/motion/offset-path-ray-contain-003-ref.html
https://wpt.fyi//css/motion/offset-path-ray-contain-004-ref.html
https://wpt.fyi//css/motion/offset-path-ray-contain-005-ref.html

Rationale

Spec: https://drafts.fxtf.org/motion/#valdef-ray-contain
Test changes are due to the recent spec change: previously implied that the box should be inside the circle, formed by the radius of the ray length. Now it became easier as just reduces the ray length by a fixed value.

CL to see the changes: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4453583

[danielsakhapov]

@tabatkins @BorisChiou @dirkschulze FYI

[BorisChiou]

Thanks for updating the tests. :)

[foolip]

@BorisChiou can we treat that as a thumbs from Gecko to update these tests? cc @jgraham

@nt1m @gsnedders can you take a look for WebKit?

[BorisChiou]

Yes. Just a nitpick: perhaps we can tweak offset-path-ray-contain-001.html a little bit to avoid using non integer value, e.g. translate(64.645px, -164.645px) in the ref html.

Anyway, the current version of your patch (WPT part) looks good to me (from Gecko).

[foolip]

We discussed this in #323 and the summary is that while not everyone has studies the changes in detail, there was no objection to making the changes and following up as implementers uncover more issues in the course of working on the feature. (Which is business as usual.) But we wanted some paper trail of WebKit approval to update the tests, so I'll assign this to @nt1m.

[gsnedders]

Spec: https://drafts.fxtf.org/motion/#valdef-ray-contain Test changes are due to the recent spec change: previously implied that the box should be inside the circle, formed by the radius of the ray length. Now it became easier as just reduces the ray length by a fixed value.

Is this primarily w3c/fxtf-drafts#363?

[danielsakhapov]

@gsnedders yes, it is

[nt1m]

Based on internal feedback, I think we can go ahead and adjust again later as we find issues when implementing.

[foolip]

Thank all, this proposal is approved based on feedback above. @danielsakhapov please feel free to land the changes.