Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
When calling "measure" on ScrollView's children, origin needs to be adjusted for ScrollView's content offset.
For this scrollView uses `getTransform` to adjust frames of its children.
This is wrong because transform is applied to ScrollView as well.
Example:
ScrollView is scrolled 900 points and its origin is {0, 0}, if you call "measure" on the ScrollView, our current measure infra will report its origin being {0, 900}.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D22456266
fbshipit-source-id: 6fd54661305ad46def8ece93fcf61d66817b3e01
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
FindNoteAtPoint takes transformations into account. There is however a problem with how transformation in ScrollView. In ScrollViewShadowNode, getTransform is overriden. In the override we apply `Transform::Translate(-contentOffset.x, -contentOffset.y, 0)`, this means that ScrollView has moved by {-x,-y}. However this is only true for its children, not for scroll view itself. This trips off findNodeAtPoint and if you scroll more than than screen's height, point will not be evaluated as inside ScrollView.
Until we can figure out how to deal with this properly, I think it is better to disable it as usage of JS Inspector is more common in ScrollViews than it is with transformed views.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D22332779
fbshipit-source-id: f48c9ae67a595e6954c2b70fb287db7f8c74378b
Summary:
It's a Yoga specific feature that does not need to exposed as LayoutableShadowNode.
Removing this we save many virtual calls and add simplicity.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D22304717
fbshipit-source-id: f2dda8309dd86b78cd2775971721d29e5317ffd5
Summary:
`Overflow inset` is a field in LayoutMetrics that describes the external bounding box that covers area formed by all descendants of the view (that might stick out of the frame of the view).
This information can be used for various optimizations across all rendering pipeline. Here is some of them:
Improving hit-testing performance.
Implementing a robust "remove invisible native views" feature.
Improving `clipToBounds` performance.
Improving View Flattening versatility.
Most importantly, we need this for improving <ScrollView> performance (and memory footprint) which we have to do to match parity with Paper's `removeClippedSubviews` feature.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D22297325
fbshipit-source-id: cb238f0505d11ccabbe9db26f36a98b3172c70db
Summary:
After years of trying to design a somehow decomposed and universal layout API, I think we chased a wrong goal. None of the solutions that I tried helped with simplicity, composability, performance, or readability. Besides that, a bunch of execution primitives we use (e.g. `setHasNewLayout`) are heavily influenced by Yoga and are far from being commonly applicable. Finally, we ended up with a situation where the current design does not allow us to implement the features we want (more about that in coming diffs).
The diff changes that. Now we have only one method that implements layout - `layout()`; all possible implementations are free to implement it in any way that makes sense for a particular approach. And, I think, even for the base case - Yoga powered layout - things are much simpler and faster now: it's easy to comprehend how a single method works and now we don't have two loops and an expensive call to `getLayoutableChildNodes`.
But most importantly, after this change will be able to implement the `Inset Overflow` feature quite easily.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D22297317
fbshipit-source-id: f8662b7e8e3b522bdd6e5b2b0ac6a06efb45be6d
Summary:
Here is why:
* It was with us from the very beginning but we never use it.
* The main purpose of this - snap-to-pixel layout - was moved to Yoga, where it should be.
* The current implementation has a bug.
* It's not really correct conceptually because the value becomes incorrect when an immutable subtree is being reused as part of a new tree.
* It over-complicates a new feature I am working on.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D22284645
fbshipit-source-id: c4c2df8d24e8fe924725b465e04e8154d097d226
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
Add support for dynamic font size.
New class `ThreadStorage` is introduced, which is used to pass LayoutContext to `YogaLayoutableShadowNode::yogaNodeMeasureCallbackConnector`.
## Shortcoming
This implementation doesn't cause re-render, if user changes font size and comes to the app without restarting it, it will show old font size. I believe this is fine for now as most people set their font size before they use the app and keep the same setting for a long time.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D22043728
fbshipit-source-id: 7453d165c280a2f4bcb73f4ee6daf9e64b637ded
Summary:
Changelog: [internal]
Rename `LayoutableShadowNode::measure` to `LayoutableShadowNode::measureContent` and add LayoutContext as parameter.
Pass `LayoutConstraints` by reference rather than value.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D22043727
fbshipit-source-id: b668240c45b658db5b114630b73d7407d35482aa
Summary:
This diff simplifies the implementation of `LayoutableShadowNode::getRelativeLayoutMetrics`.
It fixes a small bug but the most important change is the new interface.
Now the function that does measurements accepts a node and a family instead of two nodes. It prevents misuse and misinterpretation of what the function does. The function needs two things to perform measurement:
* an ancestor node that defines the tree is being measured and the base node of measurement;
* a family of some descendant node being measured relative to the ancestor node.
An API that accepts two nodes is misleading because it implies that the given descendant node will be measured (which is not true).
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D21480200
fbshipit-source-id: 9fddc361417fee47bbf66cc7ac2954eb088a3179
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
Using `empty()` vs `size() == 0` or `size() > 0`.
It is a more semantic way to check whether container is empty or not.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D21573183
fbshipit-source-id: b83283f687432a037941852114717a0f014e28db
Summary:
We don't use it as vitrual anymore (setLayoutMetrics is a non-virtual method already), so it does not need to be marker virtual.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D21028572
fbshipit-source-id: 99f86fdd4cf2f5972034d9058d7b82bdc8680187
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
Current implementation of `measure` doesn't take transform into account..
So if you had a view which has width and height 100 and had `Scale(0.5, 0.5, 1)` (this will shrink view by half). Calling `getRelativeLayoutMetrics` would report its size being `{100, 100}`.
This applies if view's parent has transformation as well, because transformation is applied to all subviews of the view as well.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D20621590
fbshipit-source-id: 2cf902a0494291c821ecada56f810c5e6620db5a
Summary:
`LayoutInspectingPolicy` has two flags, `includeTransform` and `includeScrollViewContentOffset`.
`includeScrollViewContentOffset` seems to be redundant for two reasons.
# 1st
From looking at callers, they have always the same value.
I looked at all call sites, and they are either always both set to true or both set to false.
# 2nd
The way we include scroll view content offset, is through transformation, so setting `includeTransform` to true and `includeScrollViewContentOffset` to false will include content offset anyway. In order to make both flags work, we would need to introduce further changes to `getRelativeLayoutMetrics`. But since the flag isn't used anyway, I think it is better to get rid of it for now. If we need it in the future, we could re-introduce it.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D20622256
fbshipit-source-id: fb6156c66b752319ea928239fa723ff90688b0a0
Summary:
This behavior matches the behavior of `dynamic_cast` (on which some callsites rely on).
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20456792
fbshipit-source-id: 9604da0f9f78cc7357e60ed11012756e753e4b45
Summary:
Before this change, fields of EmptyLayoutMetrics have some "invalid" values to allow us to compare equal them individually and get `false`. Turned out that having invalid values there might break some serialization layers, which is no good.
This change fixes that and adds explicit check for EmptyLayoutMetrics before running a comparison of individual fields.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D20324881
fbshipit-source-id: ab8e2a402f6bdfb393fc9b6789decb526fa94dfa
Summary:
This diff introduces a new method of `LayoutableShadowNode` called `measure`. The purpose of the method is to measure the node from an "outside" perspective (including paddings and so on). The existing method with the same name (but with slightly different signature) will be renamed to `measureContent` in future diffs.
Hense we will have two `measure*` methods:
* `measureContent` measures nested content of the node;
* `measure` measures the node (outside).
This diff also introduces a default implementation of a new measure that uses `layoutTree` under the hood.
Measures the node with given layoutConstraints and layoutContext.
The size of nested content and the padding should be included, the margin should *not* be included.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross, sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20268047
fbshipit-source-id: 29c28cf16c5afe24f1bfb6e76c42816d4583a8fa
Summary:
Removing `virtual` qualifier for `LayoutableShadowNode::setLayoutMetrics()`. Original design implied that some subclass might override that method to provide additional functionality but we never used that and seems not it does not much the overall design: we store `layoutMetrics` *inside* `LayoutableShadowNode`.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20268042
fbshipit-source-id: 2aa9b3da316b97f26493fb04d19ca8290bd5d2a6
Summary: Now, following the previous diff, we remove `LayoutableShadowNode::isLayoutOnly()` and change the view flattening algorithm to rely on two new traits. See the previous diff to learn more about how it works.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20212252
fbshipit-source-id: 87a07e8bb17b2e66e5703f107dc35ca7a8e49634
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
Use LayoutContext to pass `fontSizeMultiplier` down to ParagrapShadowNode.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D20184596
fbshipit-source-id: 3965a127069a21328ed19cb3f9732f0a2d1c4d58
Summary:
In order to build dynamic text sizing, `LayoutableShadowNode::measure` needs to accept `LayoutContext`
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D20184598
fbshipit-source-id: 8928b59d51948caf3654f40049212a89a91dceb6
Summary:
All logic that is performed on the root node only was moved from `layout` to a separate methods `layoutTree`. That makes the code simpler and allows reusing `layoutTree` in InlineViews feature.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D20052025
fbshipit-source-id: 3070a1cca4e322c6d077ede751ea80359c96a600
Summary:
Here we refine the `ShadowNode::BaseTraits` static method. Before this change, ConcreteViewShadowNode<> enforces Layoutable and YogaLayoutable traits. This change moves that responsibility to LayoutableShadowNode and YogaLayoutableShadowNode which makes overall logic more coherent.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20052027
fbshipit-source-id: fd25264204b0232b1dbbff6f9dfefd9fbcb146c4
Summary:
The fact that `LayoutableShadowNode` now inherits `ShadowNode` allows us to de-virtualize `getLayoutableChildNodes` and move that to `LayoutableShadowNode`. Less code, less virtual dispatch, less complexity.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20052032
fbshipit-source-id: 580e86b5a746028e470788e00027f247bf77126c
Summary:
D19963353 mentioned the infrastructure that re-routes methods calls related to adding and cloning children between YogaLayoutableShadowNode and ShadowNode. `cloneAndReplaceChild` is exactly this. It was implemented as a virtual method that is called from `ConcreteViewShadowNode`. The whole process requires building a list of children of some class and passing that as a list of pointers. Now we don't need it all that because we can call directly and statically. That change will allow us to simplify that infra even more in the future diffs.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20052022
fbshipit-source-id: ddf341c112edd8a2f79eaf74465a9a360a168541
Summary:
`traitCast` is a special form of static_cast that checks additional requirements (similar to `dynamic_cast`) before performing the cast. We will use that in many places in the coming diffs.
Restructuring the class hierarchy in the previous diff finally allows us to do static casts among ShadowNode and LayoutableShadowNode and other classes (previously it wasn't allowed because of lack of common base class).
Why we don't want to use `dynamic_cast`:
* It's expensive (and we need to do the cast on the hottest fragments of the framework). (See: (1) http://www.stroustrup.com/fast_dynamic_casting.pdf and (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARYP83yNAWk Herb Sutter & proposal of `down_cast`).
* It's code-size inefficient, whereas `static_cast` has zero runtime and code-size overhead.
* Removing `dynamic_cast` will allow us finally to opt-out `RTTI` (additional code size and perm wins).
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D20052024
fbshipit-source-id: d293c1cf80deb7817d333d5306d6b32bf3abdb27
Summary:
This is a very crucial change, everything else in this stack depends on it.
Here is the set of constraints that we have for ShadowNode-based class hierarchy:
* `ShadowNode` is a base class that defines basic operations on the nodes. It does not have virtual methods by design (virtual dispatch hurts performance; we want to limit and centralize that in `ComponentDescriptor`s).
* `ConcreteShadowNode<>` template *statically* wires particular `ShadowNode` and particular `Props` establishing a type-safe relationship between them ensured on compile time.
* Not all `ShadowNode`s are "layoutable", not all "layoutable" `ShadowNode`s use Yoga to do layout.
* Layotability (and YogaLayotability) feature is implemented as two classes `LayoutableShadowNode` and `YogaLayoutableShadowNode`. These classes essentially need to know something about the ShadowNode nature of the object (get the list of children or replace some children).
Before the change, `LayoutableShadowNode` and `YogaLayoutableShadowNode`classes did not inherit `ShadowNode` because we don't want to use *virtual inheritance* for `ShadowNode`: `ConcreteShadowNode<>` already inherits `ShadowNode`, so if we make `LayoutableShadowNode` inherits `ShadowNode`, we will have to somehow flatten this inheritance hierarchy (and the virtual inheritance is an answer to that). (Yes, C++ supports multiple inheritance and virtual inheritance.)
Before this change, we solved this dilemma this way: We have a subclass-template `ConcreteViewShadowNode<>` that inherits `ConcreteShadowNode<>` and `YogaLayoutableShadowNode`. Then, we had a bunch of methods that implement the rerouting of some functionality from `YogaLayoutableShadowNode` to `ShadowNode` and vise-versa. (See the diagram "Before".)
That worked fine, except the caveats:
* That wiring is nasty, complex, hard to reason about and overall limiting.
* There is no way to statically cast `LayoutableShadowNode` to `ShadowNode` (because there is no common base class). That forces us to use dynamic_cast on some perf critical paths (including layout, diffing and so on).
* Adding features that rely on interop between `LayoutableShadowNode` and `ShadowNode` is a nightmare.
It should be a better way to deal with this dilemma, and this diff implements a different approach: We can have a base class of `ConcreteShadowNode<>` as a template parameter. With this approach, we can make `LayoutableShadowNode` inherit `ShadowNode` and when we need to instantiate a `ConcreteShadowNode<>` that needs to be layoutable, we can just specify `YogaLayoutableShadowNode` as a base class. (See the diagram "After".)
This simple change will allow us to simplify a lot of things. The rest of the stack is about getting rid of unnecessary moving parts. Which will finally allow us to build "Inline Views" feature.
```
╭──────────────────────╮
│ ◎ ○ ○ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│
├──────────────────────┤
│ │
│ │
│ Before │
│ │ ┌────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ ShadowNode │ │ LayoutableShadowNode │
└──────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │
└────────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘
▲ ▲
│ │
╔════════════════════════════╗ ┌────────────────────────────┐
║ ║ │ │
┌────────�║ ConcreteShadowNode<> ║ │ YogaLayoutableShadowNode │
│ ║ ║ │ │
│ ╚════════════════════════════╝ └────────────────────────────┘
│ ▲ ▲
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ ╔════════════════════════════╗ │
│ │ ║ ║ │
│ └─────║ ConcreteViewShadowNode<> ║─┘
│ ║ ║
│ ╚════════════════════════════╝
│ ▲
│ │
│ ┌──────────────┴───────────────┐
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
┌────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ TextShadowNode │ │ ViewShadowNode │ │ ParagraphShadowNode │
│ │ │ │ │ │
└────────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘
╭──────────────────────╮
│ ◎ ○ ○ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│
├──────────────────────┤
│ │ ┌────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │
│ After │ │ ShadowNode │
│ │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────────────┘
│ │ ▲
└──────────────────────┘ ┌────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ╔════════════════════════════╗
┌────────────────────────────┐ ║ ConcreteShadowNode ║
│ │ ║ <Base: ShadowNode> ║
│ LayoutableShadowNode │ ║ ║
│ │ ╚════════════════════════════╝
└────────────────────────────┘ ▲
▲ │
│ ┌────────────────────────────┐
┌────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ TextShadowNode │
│ YogaLayoutableShadowNode │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────────────┘
└────────────────────────────┘
▲
│
╔════════════════════════════╗
║ ConcreteShadowNode ║
║ <Base: ║
║ YogaLayoutableShadowNode> ║
╚════════════════════════════╝
▲
│
╔════════════════════════════╗
║ ║
║ ConcreteViewShadowNode<> ║
║ ║
╚════════════════════════════╝
▲
├─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
┌────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │
│ ParagraphShadowNode │ │ ViewShadowNode │
│ │ │ │
└────────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘
```
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D19963353
fbshipit-source-id: b65c8a5064bdb54ab64f08a8e546aa9e2b5a486b
Summary:
Changelog: [Internal]
# Analysis
Measure returns following values for `frame.y` when tapping item in bottom sheet.
Fabric 412.33331298828125.
Paper 49.
In Paper, the frame.y returned is the position of tapped item in bottom sheet relative to the bottom sheet itself, which is correct.
This can happen in both BottomSheet and Modal.
# Why it happens?
In [UIManager.getRelativeLayoutMetrics](https://our.intern.facebook.com/intern/diffusion/FBS/browse/master/xplat/js/react-native-github/ReactCommon/fabric/uimanager/UIManager.cpp?commit=a372cf516ba1245ad9462e68376ee759c118a884&lines=172-181) if `ancestorShadowNode` is nullptr we populate `ancestorShadowNode` with `rootShadowNode` for the surface.
Problem is that BottomSheet that is presented, is not a separate surface. This means that we climb up the shadow node hierarchy all the way to root shadow node and keep adding offsets. Even though we should stop when we hit shadow node representing BottomSheet.
# How could be this fixed?
I think we should add a new shadow node trait that would mark node as root node. As we are traversing the shadow node tree upwards and adding offset of that node, once we hit a node that is "anchor", we would immediately stop the traversal.
This solution is inspired by Paper where the node representing BottomSheet has a special flag which marks it as "root" node.
accepttoship
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross, mdvacca
Differential Revision: D19640454
fbshipit-source-id: bde623b1f41a9745a41f0aada7221bf924fad453
Summary:
Changelog: [internal]
1. Moves `ShadowNode::getAncestors` to `ShadowNodeFamily`.
2. Exposes shadowNode's family through `ShadowNode::getFamily()`.
# Why?
This is a first step in order to merge `StateCoordinator` into `ShadowNodeFamily` and use it as target for state updates.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D19465188
fbshipit-source-id: b5a3625aa21c040301259de02beedbf97e11f20e
Summary:
# Changes
1. Fixes a bug when calling `LayoutableShadowNode::getRelativeLayoutMetrics` with `this` being the same node as ancestor.
2. Refactors logic that increments `layoutMetric.frame.origin` by iterating through ancestors.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D19468690
fbshipit-source-id: 5b9e187adc26a206da035e4387bb5f528aabdbb2
Summary:
# Logs
```
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 0 tag: 1432 debugValue: r1
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r2
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r2
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][UIManager.cpp:197] width: 0 tag: 1432 debugValue: r1/sealed <----------------- FIRST TAP
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][UIManager.cpp:197] width: 0 tag: 1432 debugValue: r1/sealed <----------------- FIRST TAP
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r4
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r5
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r6
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r7
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][ConcreteViewShadowNode.h:119] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r8
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][UIManager.cpp:197] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r7/sealed <----------------- SECOND TAP
[tid:com.facebook.react.JavaScript][UIManager.cpp:197] width: 375 tag: 1432 debugValue: r7/sealed <----------------- SECOND TAP
```
# What’s happening here?
Opening a *BottomSheet* and tapping the first item. As you can see before the item is tapped, it has *width* set to 375 in revision *r2*.
When the tap happens, JavaScript is requesting an old revision of ShadowNode, which still has width 0.
# My assumption.
1. Native creates node with *width* 0 and returns handle to *JS*.
2. Native *clones* the node, sets its *width* to 375, doesn’t tell *JS* about it. This update is due to state change.
3. *JS* tries to get the size of the node, but asking for first revision of the component it receives width 0.
# Other observations
1. Manually setting width to 375 in UIManager::getRelativeLayoutMetrics fixes the problem.
2. This happens only on device, I wasn’t able to reproduce this on simulator.
# Fix
Find the newest revision of ShadowNodeFamily, and return its layoutMetrics.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D19433873
fbshipit-source-id: 4558cf6e704051e9b3968e83821d8d25b3dadcda
Summary:
# Problem
The issue is in implementation of `LayoutableShadowNode::getRelativeLayoutMetrics`.
If you have view tree (A has a child B), and you call `B.getRelativeLayoutMetrics(A)`, the expected result is B's origin within A. The implementation wasn't reflecting that, it was reflecting B's origin within A + A's origin within its parent.
# Fix
When iterating over ancestors of ShadowNode, the last ancestor should be skipped.
AncestorList is a list that starts with provided ancestor and ends with parent of `this`. To skip provided ancestor we iterate to `rend() - 1`.
# Why does it work in some cases?
This function is triggered from `UIManager.getRelativeLayoutMetrics` without `ancestorShadowNode` provided, we find the RootShadowNode, which has origin `{0, 0}`.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D19447900
fbshipit-source-id: 4a9606dc1fab3fecfb85d337b014188d80e5b355
Summary:
This diff implements the findNodeAtPoint method to return the ShadowNode that is positioned into a Point of the screen.
What's not supported:
- Scroll position
- Transform
- return layoutable nodes that are contained inside a non-layoutable node
Changelog: [internal]
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D19190285
fbshipit-source-id: fdc0358dc21312e9950a4eb16c36020e9e43e33f
Summary:
This diff re-enables propagation of ScrollView's content-offset value down to the ShadowTree layer and enables measure fucntions opt-in incorporating this info to result.
Changelog: [Internal] Fabric-specific internal change.
Reviewed By: zackargyle
Differential Revision: D18981891
fbshipit-source-id: a6c0f4e690703b0ee07d45efab161750cfcc4b60
Summary:
This diff changes the value of `EmptyLayoutMetrics` to make it as unusual and useless as possible. This helps when we need to compare sub-values of `LayoutMetrics` to apply only changed ones.
For example, let say we need to make a transition between two `LayoutMetrics` values. Let's say the first (the source) one equals `EmptyLayoutMetrics`. In order to apply only changed part, we need to compare individual sub-values, like `frame` or `displayType`. Before this change, the default value of `borderWidth` was `{0, 0, 0, 0}`. So in case if the second (the destination) value is also `{0, 0, 0, 0}`, the operation will be skipped.
This is undesirable because all new values have to be applied anyway because `EmptyLayoutMetrics` designates that the actual previous values are unknowns.
This fixes some visual issues on iOS caused by this issue because recycled views sometimes have non-default layout values where the transition from `EmptyLayoutMetrics` to some arbitrary value skips some sub-values.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D17312176
fbshipit-source-id: 7f311baea202ec2662ca87be0ae0ae6c6dd42712
Summary:
MountingCoordinator is a borderline between Core and Mounting. Some of Core design constraints are impossible/impractical to enforce on Mounting layer, so we have to handle all of those cases in `MountingCoordinator`.
One of the constrains is that all ShadowNodes implicitly depend on associated ComponentDescriptor instances without retaining them (retaining is expensive and creates a retain cycle).
The problem is that the Mounting layer can call `MountingCoordinator::pull()` at any moment (even after the whole Core is already destroyed). To prevent this, the owner of a `MountingCoordinator` on the Core side calls `revoke()` right before being deallocated (right before the moment the owner cannot guarantee the constraint).
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D17272295
fbshipit-source-id: ba8b02eab8f84cce68aa65c1ad36950cd2498049
Summary:
Previously the pointScaleFactor field was not being compared properly in LayoutMetrics equality method.
This diff fixes that
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D15303555
fbshipit-source-id: 8863e9e1fbad15b43400afc32b97bf6d252cbe55
Summary: After this change, all measuring operations based on `LayoutableShadowNode::getRelativeLayoutMetrics` will take into account the transformation matrices provided by shadow nodes. This will allow implementing scroll-offset-aware and custom-transform-aware measuring.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross, mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15219259
fbshipit-source-id: 1d7cd8c0ee4406f4dd0002cd442dc0679391922b
Summary:
`LayoutableShadowNode::getTransform` returns a transform object that represents transformations that will/should
be applied on top of regular layout metrics by mounting layer.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15219262
fbshipit-source-id: e7aeb85b5f7e2fce3f8faf9dfcaee5dae3217d36
Summary:
Previously we computed the list of nodes that need to be notified about layout changes using a list of mutation instructions. That was fine, but that's not really compatible with some other changes that I plan to make, so I decided to change it (make it better).
Besides the better design (debatable; fewer dependencies to unrelated moving pieces), here is why I believe the new way is more performant:
* The new approach has no `dynamic_casts`, whereas the previous has tons of them (two per a mutation). If a `dynamic_cast` takes 10 ns, for 500 nodes it can take up to 5ms only for casts. (Non-scientific assumption.)
* After removing dependency to mutation instruction, we can enable flattening for views which have `onLayout` event.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15110725
fbshipit-source-id: 31a657ccfd02441734ad1d71a833653223163289
Summary: `kFloatUndefined` means "no value here", but in this particular case, we have to have `Infinity` value that represents maximum available space.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D15155190
fbshipit-source-id: d2de20681ad04da7444331eff44b93d2bd0200e3
Summary: Same algorithm using a new API.
Reviewed By: JoshuaGross
Differential Revision: D14423509
fbshipit-source-id: c40f61fdd001f68785512c304941f523585d641c
Joshua Gross
Samuel Susla
Valentin Shergin
generatedunixname89002005287564
David Vacca
Andres Suarez
Min ho Kim