feat: React to scale factor changes

[marc2332]

Closes #270
depends on #598

WIP

[github-actions]

Benchmark for d5c0bea

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
benchmarks/alignments=true size=21845 depth=8 wide=4 mode=not cached	107.2±3.33ms	107.5±2.37ms	+0.28%
benchmarks/size=100001 depth=2 wide=100000 mode=not cached	26.0±2.23ms	25.3±2.02ms	-2.69%
benchmarks/size=10001 depth=2 wide=10000 mode=not cached	1404.4±54.85µs	1383.1±13.49µs	-1.52%
benchmarks/size=1001 depth=2 wide=1000 mode=not cached	132.1±2.17µs	130.7±5.60µs	-1.06%
benchmarks/size=131071 depth=17 wide=2 mode=not cached	25.1±1.10ms	25.6±1.26ms	+1.99%
benchmarks/size=16383 depth=14 wide=2 mode=not cached	1688.9±110.72µs	2.4±0.37ms	+42.10%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=cached	321.8±13.50µs	402.2±44.64µs	+24.98%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=not cached	2.7±0.17ms	2.8±0.33ms	+3.70%
benchmarks/size=4095 depth=12 wide=2 mode=not cached	397.7±82.01µs	404.2±59.67µs	+1.63%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=cached	347.4±127.79µs	259.9±26.43µs	-25.19%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=not cached	6.9±0.84ms	6.2±0.16ms	-10.14%

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 65.74074% with 37 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.12%. Comparing base (15bb5e1) to head (1c75fd3).

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/renderer/src/elements/rect.rs	0.00%	15 Missing ⚠️
crates/state/src/font_style.rs	40.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
crates/renderer/src/renderer.rs	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
crates/state/src/layout.rs	71.42%	4 Missing ⚠️
crates/renderer/src/app.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
crates/renderer/src/render.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
crates/renderer/src/elements/paragraph.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                         Coverage Diff                          @@
##           feat/bump-accesskit-winit-glutin     #606      +/-   ##
====================================================================
- Coverage                             73.19%   73.12%   -0.08%     
====================================================================
  Files                                   190      190              
  Lines                                 19201    19229      +28     
====================================================================
+ Hits                                  14054    14061       +7     
- Misses                                 5147     5168      +21     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 095e910

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
benchmarks/alignments=true size=21845 depth=8 wide=4 mode=not cached	106.1±1.26ms	105.2±0.94ms	-0.85%
benchmarks/size=100001 depth=2 wide=100000 mode=not cached	23.3±1.53ms	23.2±1.27ms	-0.43%
benchmarks/size=10001 depth=2 wide=10000 mode=not cached	1367.1±10.11µs	1368.4±18.32µs	+0.10%
benchmarks/size=1001 depth=2 wide=1000 mode=not cached	131.7±1.70µs	129.7±1.43µs	-1.52%
benchmarks/size=131071 depth=17 wide=2 mode=not cached	25.2±2.18ms	23.6±0.35ms	-6.35%
benchmarks/size=16383 depth=14 wide=2 mode=not cached	1700.3±74.92µs	1629.9±35.28µs	-4.14%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=cached	315.7±10.27µs	314.6±7.80µs	-0.35%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=not cached	2.5±0.03ms	2.6±0.03ms	+4.00%
benchmarks/size=4095 depth=12 wide=2 mode=not cached	399.4±116.52µs	399.5±130.17µs	+0.03%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=cached	261.9±31.86µs	262.7±26.72µs	+0.31%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=not cached	6.3±0.25ms	6.2±0.39ms	-1.59%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 6f8531a

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
benchmarks/alignments=true size=21845 depth=8 wide=4 mode=not cached	105.5±0.90ms	108.1±0.92ms	+2.46%
benchmarks/size=100001 depth=2 wide=100000 mode=not cached	25.8±1.05ms	26.8±1.26ms	+3.88%
benchmarks/size=10001 depth=2 wide=10000 mode=not cached	1376.7±11.79µs	1384.4±11.09µs	+0.56%
benchmarks/size=1001 depth=2 wide=1000 mode=not cached	130.1±1.13µs	130.2±2.93µs	+0.08%
benchmarks/size=131071 depth=17 wide=2 mode=not cached	25.3±0.98ms	24.8±0.77ms	-1.98%
benchmarks/size=16383 depth=14 wide=2 mode=not cached	1629.7±9.57µs	1624.7±7.75µs	-0.31%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=cached	331.9±15.40µs	339.7±18.37µs	+2.35%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=not cached	2.6±0.06ms	2.5±0.11ms	-3.85%
benchmarks/size=4095 depth=12 wide=2 mode=not cached	396.4±135.22µs	398.3±148.24µs	+0.48%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=cached	339.9±56.57µs	272.2±20.09µs	-19.92%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=not cached	6.3±0.13ms	6.1±0.09ms	-3.17%

[ZeroX-DG]

Works great! Tho the massive example look differently on different scale.

On scale factor 1:

On scale factor 2:

[marc2332]

oh, I probably missed some parameter to scale :D

Was it like that before?

[ZeroX-DG]

This is how it looks on main:

Scale factor 1:

Scale factor 2:

[marc2332]

Yeah, main looks good, I probably missed something on this PR :)

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 10d5336

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
benchmarks/alignments=true size=21845 depth=8 wide=4 mode=not cached	104.6±0.50ms	105.4±0.91ms	+0.76%
benchmarks/size=100001 depth=2 wide=100000 mode=not cached	23.6±0.90ms	23.9±1.67ms	+1.27%
benchmarks/size=10001 depth=2 wide=10000 mode=not cached	1367.2±8.78µs	1384.6±32.46µs	+1.27%
benchmarks/size=1001 depth=2 wide=1000 mode=not cached	129.4±1.06µs	130.1±0.90µs	+0.54%
benchmarks/size=131071 depth=17 wide=2 mode=not cached	24.4±0.74ms	24.2±0.55ms	-0.82%
benchmarks/size=16383 depth=14 wide=2 mode=not cached	1643.6±38.78µs	1629.7±66.09µs	-0.85%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=cached	309.4±3.26µs	315.6±10.09µs	+2.00%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=not cached	2.5±0.04ms	2.5±0.02ms	0.00%
benchmarks/size=4095 depth=12 wide=2 mode=not cached	396.5±59.65µs	397.1±129.40µs	+0.15%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=cached	250.8±37.46µs	243.0±14.86µs	-3.11%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=not cached	6.8±0.13ms	6.2±0.15ms	-8.82%

[marc2332]

@ZeroX-DG That was actually not working well on main either, and it was because of a wrong usage of calc() in the massive.rs example, which I just fixed. Should work fine now :)

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 85a4569

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
benchmarks/alignments=true size=21845 depth=8 wide=4 mode=not cached	104.7±0.63ms	112.7±0.85ms	+7.64%
benchmarks/size=100001 depth=2 wide=100000 mode=not cached	22.0±0.59ms	22.4±1.09ms	+1.82%
benchmarks/size=10001 depth=2 wide=10000 mode=not cached	1383.4±12.26µs	1376.6±13.43µs	-0.49%
benchmarks/size=1001 depth=2 wide=1000 mode=not cached	129.4±2.03µs	131.2±7.02µs	+1.39%
benchmarks/size=131071 depth=17 wide=2 mode=not cached	22.2±0.24ms	23.2±1.04ms	+4.50%
benchmarks/size=16383 depth=14 wide=2 mode=not cached	1620.9±37.48µs	1676.2±38.38µs	+3.41%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=cached	309.9±1.84µs	314.3±17.59µs	+1.42%
benchmarks/size=19531 depth=7 wide=5 mode=not cached	2.5±0.01ms	2.6±0.01ms	+4.00%
benchmarks/size=4095 depth=12 wide=2 mode=not cached	398.9±104.37µs	407.5±97.50µs	+2.16%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=cached	242.6±10.96µs	249.2±139.62µs	+2.72%
benchmarks/size=54241 depth=5 wide=15 mode=not cached	6.1±0.17ms	6.1±0.05ms	0.00%

[ZeroX-DG]

Nice! Works like a charm now!