Reverting Firefox OIT Fix #4815

[squrki]

Description

Reverts code change for Firefox OIT.

Issue number and link

Issue #4815
#4815

Testing plan

Author checklist

• I have submitted a Contributor License Agreement
• I have added my name to CONTRIBUTORS.md
• I have updated CHANGES.md with a short summary of my change
• I have added or updated unit tests to ensure consistent code coverage
• I have updated the inline documentation, and included code examples where relevant
• I have performed a self-review of my code

[github-actions]

Thank you for the pull request, @squrki!

✅ We can confirm we have a CLA on file for you.

[ggetz]

@javagl Could you please review this PR?

[javagl]

The change itself looks clean and straightforward. I think that this PR does not completely revert the fix, though: There seems to be a change in #5047 that addressed the same issue, in FramebufferSpec.js, and I think that it should be possble to revert that as well.

In terms of testing ... well... it's always interesting to see a PR that links to issues where, after 1 or 2 clicks through related issues, the year "2014" appears. Verifying the issue itself (as in a comparison of "before-after") is difficult in these cases, because ... I'd probably have to set up a VirtualBox with Windows XP in order to run a FireFox 50 😁

But what I did: I checked out the state from this PR, and ran the https://sandcastle.cesium.com/index.html?src=Geometry%20and%20Appearances.html , This does call the updateTextures function that was modified here. I tried this on Chrome 129.0.6668.59 and FireFox 130.0.1 , and it worked in both cases:

---

_{In CI, there's that green checkmark. Locally, I do have some test failures, but these seem to mainly be timeouts, and therefore seem to be unrelated to the change here}

[squrki]

@javagl I've reverted the changes to #5047 as well.

[javagl]

The current CI failure seems to only/mainly be at the linting stage. Doing an
npm run prettier
will probably remove some 'space' or newline somewhere, and that should fix it.

(There also is a test failure, but that seems pretty unrelated - that can be handled later if it is still there after the linting update)

@ggetz The "Review required" is new - I'm not sure whether I'm automatically expected to "Approve" this. But I'd do this as soon as CI passes (even though someone else will merge it)

[ggetz]

The "Review required" is new - I'm not sure whether I'm automatically expected to "Approve" this. But I'd do this as soon as CI passes (even though someone else will merge it)

@javagl If you can do so, please do!

[javagl]

As mentioned in the first comment: The changes look clean. CI passes. Should be good to go.

[ggetz]

Thanks @squrki and @javagl!