Summary:
@public
This is quite a big diff but the actual meaningful change is simple: now we use ShadowView class instead of ShadowNode in mutation instructions.
Note:
* In some places (especially during diffing) we have to operate with ShadowNodeViewPair objects (which represents a pair of ShadowNode and ShadowView). The reason for that is that we cannot construct child ShadowViews from parent ShadowViews because they don't have any information about children.
* `ShadowTree::emitLayoutEvents` is now much simpler because ShadowView better represents the specifics of this kind of object.
* The code in RCTMountingManager also became simpler.
This change will allow us to implement more cool tricks soon.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D9403564
fbshipit-source-id: dbc7c61af250144d6c7335a01dc30df0005559a2
Summary:
@public
... and it's as efficient as it was before.
The previous version of the algorithm used `sourceNode` reference to know the previous state of the node to call the algorithm recursively.
That wasn't so good because of several reasons:
- It was fragile because we had two different sources of the truth of the "previous state of the tree": committed tree and source node pointer;
- We had to store weak pointers to source nodes inside cloned nodes. That is not free in terms of performance;
- The old approach introduced a constraint that all previously used and now reinserted nodes must be cloned to update source node (otherwise, the algorithm would regenerate instructions recreating already existing subtrees);
- That cloning required access to `isSealed` flag which is supposed to be a debug-only thing (that actually affects performance and must be compile-out for release builds).
The new approach compares nodes with same react tag and naturally cloning-artifacts resilient.
Yes, the new approach uses a map of inserted nodes, but the previous one already had it (otherwise there is no way to tell which nodes should be "deleted"). And anyway, this is a very little map that exists for a very little period of time.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D8709953
fbshipit-source-id: 027abb326cf45f00f7bb0bbd7c4e612578268c66
Summary: Revert the order of "remove mount items", to ensure views are removed from high index to low index.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D8742796
fbshipit-source-id: 6e04c39386d290bf3958ee83256d4fbe23e2c4ca
Summary:
@public
Most of them are legit issues which should not be compilable anyways (but Clang tolerates thems).
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D8655539
fbshipit-source-id: 645729fb9d6a120ce1ab2b07542abcdacd72320d
Summary: Apparently, `calculateMutationInstructions` must also produce mutation instructions for root node as well. To make it possible we have to change the signature of the function and weak some restrictions in TreeMutationInstruction.
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D7958248
fbshipit-source-id: 4109a6bce3a77f7eb89157201fd0e80f98487dbd
Summary:
Previously we generated `removed` *or* `delete` instruction, but sometimes we have to generate both.
So, basically we did it wrong. :(
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D7503386
fbshipit-source-id: 8ee476abd29f088f31dc776f6e6a68d5293fbb35
Summary:
The first and quite naive implementation of The Diffing algorithm.
The exact set of instructions, their semantic, order, amount, and excessiveness are still unclear.
The concept should be verified by comprehensive testing with working native views rendering layer.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D7467790
fbshipit-source-id: 08f2f646e058cac8a4b73bf7b148e2748633348d
Valentin Shergin
David Vacca
Héctor Ramos