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}}
```
Martin Kralik
rocman
Pieter De Baets
Nick Lockwood
Pawel Sienkowski
Spencer Ahrens
Alexsander Akers
chaceliang
Jakub Zika
Tadeu Zagallo