Summary: The recent commits for RecyclerViewBackedScrollView introduced a bunch of Flow errors.
Disable Flow for now in `ReactNativeViewPool` as it looks like that file doesn't use Flow :)
public
Reviewed By: gabelevi
Differential Revision: D2679974
fb-gh-sync-id: 71512f403e3fa271f6c0fa1a64e877ca1750f675
Summary: public
Changed ListView to use onLayout and onContentSizeChange (new) events instead of measure. Updated ScrollView implementation to support contentSizeChange event with an implementation based on onLayout attached to the content view. For RecyclerViewBackedScrollView we need to generate that event directly as it doesn't have a concept of content view.
This greatly improves performance of ListView that uses RecyclerViewBackedScrollView
Reviewed By: mkonicek
Differential Revision: D2679460
fb-gh-sync-id: ba26462d9d3b071965cbe46314f89f0dcfd9db9f
Summary: `ScrollView.scrollWithoutAnimationTo` is supported on iOS but not Android. This is an existing API, and this diff adds Android support.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/2695
Reviewed By: @svcscm
Differential Revision: D2452630
Pulled By: @mkonicek
Summary:
The `ScrollView` component tells the native side the subview indices of the views to make sticky. The problem is that, once layout-only views are collapsed, the indices are no longer reflective of the original views to make stick to the top.
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:
As discussed in our internal group, think this is a fairly easy error to run into so I added some explanation.
@frantic / @vjeux open to better wording here, but I tried to explain how setting the height directly is discouraged and it's probably better to pipe `flex: 1` all the way down.
I didn't regenerate the website since the script assumes some permissions (push permission to master repo) and has some missing npm dependencies (and after fixing that, still had some obscure error :P )
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/1633
Github Author: Peter Cottle <pcottle@fb.com>
Test Plan: Imported from GitHub, without a `Test Plan:` line.
Summary:
This is a proposal to add `getScrollResponder` to all ScrollView-like components, including ListView. This allows multiple higher-order scroll views to be composed while allowing the owner of the top-level scroll view to call `scrollableView.getScrollResponder().scrollTo(...)` regardless of whether `scrollableView` is a ScrollView, ListView, InvertedScrollView, etc.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/766
Github Author: James Ide <ide@jameside.com>
Test Plan: Imported from GitHub, without a `Test Plan:` line.
Summary:
Implementing the consensus approach from the comments on
this PR:
https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/486
We use a boolean flag in the Obj-C code to determine whether
to animate or not, and then provide two public JS functions
that call the Obj-C with or without the flag.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/509
Github Author: Charlie Cheever <ccheever@gmail.com>
Test Plan: Imported from GitHub, without a `Test Plan:` line.
Summary:
The `bounces` property lets you disable rubber-banding. It was already exposed on the native side so this diff is just documenting it in JS.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/264
Github Author: James Ide <ide@jameside.com>
Test Plan: Imported from GitHub, without a `Test Plan:` line.
Martin Konicek
Krzysztof Magiera
EwanThomas
rxb
James Ide
Andrei Coman
Philipp von Weitershausen
Rui Chen
Ben Alpert
Spencer Ahrens
Alex Akers
chaceliang
Peter Cottle
Gabe Levi
Nick Lockwood
Tadeu Zagallo
Brent Vatne
Charlie Cheever
Basil Hosmer
Christopher Chedeau
