Summary:It was hard to understand which parts of the shadowview API are designed to be called only on the root view, and which were applicable to any view.
This diff extracts rootview-specific logic out into a new RCTRootShadowView class.
Reviewed By: majak
Differential Revision: D3063905
fb-gh-sync-id: ef890cddfd7625fbd4bf5454314b441acdb03ac8
shipit-source-id: ef890cddfd7625fbd4bf5454314b441acdb03ac8
Summary:The UICollectionView example is actually my use-case, which is discussed in a
bit more detail [here](https://github.com/alloy/ReactNativeExperiments/issues/2).
----
This is useful when wrapping native iOS components that determine their
own suggested size and which would be too hard/unnecessary to replicate
in the shadow view. For instance a `UICollectionView` that after layout
will update its `contentSize`, which could be used to suggest a size to
the shadow view.
The reason for adding it to -[RCTShadowView setFrame:] is mainly so it
can be used via the existing -[RCTUIManager setFrame:forView:] API and
because it might not be a feature you want to expose too prominently.
An origin of `{ NAN, NAN }` is used as a sentinel to indicate that the
frame should be used as a size suggestion. The size portion of the rect
may contain a `NAN` to skip that dimension or a suggested value for the
dimension which will be used if no explicit styling has been assigned.
Examples:
* Without any expl
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/6114
Differential Revision: D2994796
Pulled By: nicklockwood
fb-gh-sync-id: 6dd3dd86a352ca7d31a0da38bc38a2859ed0a410
shipit-source-id: 6dd3dd86a352ca7d31a0da38bc38a2859ed0a410
Summary:
An initial implementation was done on css-layout but isn't working correctly on many cases. The binding from React Native has been removed a long time ago. Let's not confuse people and remove it from the docs :)
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/5522
Reviewed By: svcscm
Differential Revision: D2859665
Pulled By: vjeux
fb-gh-sync-id: 4aa008dd93a6cea6b79a7bce444c94148791eee4
Summary: There is no point in using `updateLayout` when we have `didSetProps`.
The only a bit risky part is calling `dirtyLayout` in `setFrame:forView:` instead of `updateLayout`,
but since setting frame shouldn't really change border/margin/padding it should be ok.
Depends on D2699512.
public
Reviewed By: nicklockwood
Differential Revision: D2700012
fb-gh-sync-id: a7c33b3b4e3ddc195bebebb8b03934131af016fb
Summary: public
Added lightweight genarics annotations to make the code more readable and help the compiler catch bugs.
Fixed some type bugs and improved bridge validation in a few places.
Reviewed By: javache
Differential Revision: D2600189
fb-gh-sync-id: f81e22f2cdc107bf8d0b15deec6d5b83aacc5b56
Summary:
Currently, the system for mapping JS event handlers to blocks is quite clean on the JS side, but is clunky on the native side. The event property is passed as a boolean, which can then be checked by the native side, and if true, the native side is supposed to send an event via the event dispatcher.
This diff adds the facility to declare the property as a block instead. This means that the event side can simply call the block, and it will automatically send the event. Because the blocks for bubbling and direct events are named differently, we can also use this to generate the event registration data and get rid of the arrays of event names.
The name of the event is inferred from the property name, which means that the property for an event called "load" must be called `onLoad` or the mapping won't work. This can be optionally remapped to a different property name on the view itself if necessary, e.g.
RCT_REMAP_VIEW_PROPERTY(onLoad, loadEventBlock, RCTDirectEventBlock)
If you don't want to use this mechanism then for now it is still possible to declare the property as a BOOL instead and use the old mechanism (this approach is now deprecated however, and may eventually be removed altogether).
Summary:
Moved the view creation & property binding logic out of RCTUIManager into a separate RCTComponentData class - this follows the pattern used with the bridge.
I've also updated the property binding to use pre-allocated blocks for setting the values, which is more efficient than the previous system that re-contructed the selectors each time it was called. This should improve view update performance significantly.
Summary:
Remove layout-only views. Works by checking properties against a list of known properties that only affect layout. The `RCTShadowView` hierarchy still has a 1:1 correlation with the JS nodes.
This works by adjusting the tags and indices in `manageChildren`. For example, if JS told us to insert tag 1 at index 0 and tag 1 is layout-only with children whose tags are 2 and 3, we adjust it so we insert tags 2 and 3 at indices 0 and 1. This keeps changes out of `RCTView` and `RCTScrollView`. In order to simplify this logic, view moves are now processed as view removals followed by additions. A move from index 0 to 1 is recorded as a removal of view at indices 0 and 1 and an insertion of tags 1 and 2 at indices 0 and 1. Of course, the remaining indices have to be offset to take account for this.
The `collapsible` attribute is a bit of a hack to force `RCTScrollView` to always have one child. This was easier than rethinking out the logic there, but we could change this later.
Summary:
Remove layout-only views. Works by checking properties against a list of known properties that only affect layout. The `RCTShadowView` hierarchy still has a 1:1 correlation with the JS nodes.
This works by adjusting the tags and indices in `manageChildren`. For example, if JS told us to insert tag 1 at index 0 and tag 1 is layout-only with children whose tags are 2 and 3, we adjust it so we insert tags 2 and 3 at indices 0 and 1. This keeps changes out of `RCTView` and `RCTScrollView`. In order to simplify this logic, view moves are now processed as view removals followed by additions. A move from index 0 to 1 is recorded as a removal of view at indices 0 and 1 and an insertion of tags 1 and 2 at indices 0 and 1. Of course, the remaining indices have to be offset to take account for this.
The `collapsible` attribute is a bit of a hack to force `RCTScrollView` to always have one child. This was easier than rethinking out the logic there, but we could change this later.
@public
Test Plan: There are tests in `RCTUIManagerTests.m` that test the tag- and index-manipulation logic works. There are various scenarios including add-only, remove-only, and move. In addition, two scenario tests verify that the optimization works by checking the number of views and shadow views after various situations happen.
Summary:
Simply add an `onLayout` callback to a native view component, and the callback
will be invoked with the current layout information when the view is mounted and
whenever the layout changes.
The only limitation is that scroll position and other stuff the layout system
isn't aware of is not taken into account. This is because onLayout events
wouldn't be triggered for these changes and if they are desired they should be
tracked separately (e.g. with `onScroll`) and combined.
Also fixes some bugs with LayoutAnimation callbacks.
@public
Test Plan:
- Run new LayoutEventsExample in UIExplorer and see it work correctly.
- New integration test passes internally (IntegrationTest project seems busted).
- New jest test case passes.
{F22318433}
```
2015-05-06 15:45:05.848 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "Running application "UIExplorerApp" with appParams: {"rootTag":1,"initialProps":{}}. __DEV__ === true, development-level warning are ON, performance optimizations are OFF"
2015-05-06 15:45:05.881 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received text layout event
", {"target":27,"layout":{"y":123,"x":12.5,"width":140.5,"height":18}}
2015-05-06 15:45:05.882 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received image layout event
", {"target":23,"layout":{"y":12.5,"x":122,"width":50,"height":50}}
2015-05-06 15:45:05.883 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received view layout event
", {"target":22,"layout":{"y":70.5,"x":20,"width":294,"height":204}}
2015-05-06 15:45:05.897 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received text layout event
", {"target":27,"layout":{"y":206.5,"x":12.5,"width":140.5,"height":18}}
2015-05-06 15:45:05.897 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received view layout event
", {"target":22,"layout":{"y":70.5,"x":20,"width":294,"height":287.5}}
2015-05-06 15:45:09.847 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "layout animation done."
2015-05-06 15:45:09.847 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received image layout event
", {"target":23,"layout":{"y":12.5,"x":82,"width":50,"height":50}}
2015-05-06 15:45:09.848 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received view layout event
", {"target":22,"layout":{"y":110.5,"x":60,"width":214,"height":287.5}}
2015-05-06 15:45:09.862 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received text layout event
", {"target":27,"layout":{"y":206.5,"x":12.5,"width":120,"height":68}}
2015-05-06 15:45:09.863 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received image layout event
", {"target":23,"layout":{"y":12.5,"x":55,"width":50,"height":50}}
2015-05-06 15:45:09.863 [info][tid:com.facebook.React.JavaScript] "received view layout event
", {"target":22,"layout":{"y":128,"x":60,"width":160,"height":337.5}}
```
Nick Lockwood
Eloy Durán
Christopher Chedeau
Martin Kralik
rocman
Pieter De Baets
Pawel Sienkowski
Spencer Ahrens
Alexsander Akers
chaceliang
Jakub Zika
Tadeu Zagallo