Summary:
The new C++ Differ has been validated on Android and iOS. Delete the old code path.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D28904330
fbshipit-source-id: 2e0d8682f6b2a79f9758ed8b7b92809060835815
Summary:
While I think this was a very marginal bug with no known issues in the wild, incorrect layout values were sometimes being propagated to certain nodes. This would only occur during complex nested (un)flattening operations and may only impact node consistency, specifically with setting the "previous" ShadowView of mutation instructions, specifically REMOVE and DELETE. Even in rigorous testing I had trouble hitting this case and it didn't seem to impact the "next" values in CREATE, INSERT, or UPDATE.
The issue: previously `sliceChildShadowNodeViewPairsV2` assumed that the node it's operating on is a child of a non-flattened view, and the baseline origin is `{0,0}`. You can see when `sliceChildShadowNodeViewPairsRecursivelyV2` is called, a `layoutOffset` is passed in. If we ever got a list of a node that was in a flattened parent by calling `sliceChildShadowNodeViewPairsV2`, we would incorrectly assume that baseline layoutOffset for the node is `0,0`.
Now, we store the layoutOffset in the ShadowViewNodePair and can retrieve it when getting child pairs of a node.
Changelog: [internal]
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D27759380
fbshipit-source-id: a89756190a1cb377bcc55ff31799c2afbaecdaa9
Summary:
Previously, `ShadowViewNodePair::List` owned each `ShadowViewNodePair` but whenever we put `ShadowViewNodePair` into a TinyMap, those were unowned pointer references. This worked... 99% of the time. But in some marginal cases, it would cause dangling pointers, leading to difficult-to-track-down issues. So, I'm moving both of these to be unowned pointers and keeping a `std::deque` that owns all `ShadowViewNodePair`s and is itself owned by the main differ function. See comments for more implementation details. I'm moderately concerned about memory usage regressions, but practically speaking this will contain many items when a tree is created for the first time, and then very few items after that (space complexity should be similar to `O(n)` where `n` is the number of changed nodes after the last diff).
See comments as to why I believe `std::deque` is the right choice. Long-term there might be data-structures that are even more optimal, but std::deque has the right tradeoffs compared to other built-in STL structures like std::list and std::vector, and is probably better than std::forward_list too. Long-term we may want a custom data-structure that fits our needs exactly, but std::deque comes close and is possibly optimal.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: sammy-SC
Differential Revision: D27730952
fbshipit-source-id: 2194b535439bd309803a221188da5db75242005a
Summary:
Changes in following diffs will be gated by this feature flag.
The differ in the new file is copied from the current stable implementation and will not be modified until it's deleted.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: sammy-SC, mdvacca
Differential Revision: D27775698
fbshipit-source-id: 03d9518ffd2b1f25712386c56a38bd2b4d839fc2
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/30988
We have a bunch of flags scattered throughout the codebase with poor hygiene and commenting. Consolidate.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D26392518
fbshipit-source-id: 2823de123a5009d6b8c358e8a3f451b9fa0e05b7
Summary:
The "reparenting differ" has been the default differ for several months; ship it by removing config and the old differ.
Some functions can't be deleted yet because unit testing relies on it heavily; this can be refactored in the future if we care a lot.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D25257205
fbshipit-source-id: 6f1dcc490bb1efe3d12506addf5f0843ca48c5c6
Summary:
# What is this?
For a very long time, we've discussed the possibility of detecting Node Reparenting in the Fabric Differ. Practically, from the developer perspective, ReactJS and React Native do not allow reparenting: nodes cannot be reparented, only deleted and then recreated with entirely new tags.
However, Fabric introduced the idea of View Flattening where views deemed unnecessary would be removed from the View hierarchy entirely. This is great and improves memory usage, except for one issue: if a View becomes unflattened, or becomes flattened, the entire tree underneath it must be rebuilt.
In a past diff we introduced a mechanism to detect sibling reordering cleverly, and produce a minimal instruction set. This diff is very similar: we know the invariants around flattening and unflattening of views and we take advantage of them to produce an optimal set of instructions efficiently.
# What's different from previous attempts?
No global maps! Those are slow!
This seems to work and (hopefully) might even improve performance, since way less work is being done on the UI thread in cases when views are (un)flattened.
This *only* does extra work when flattening/unflattening happens, which gives product engineers a little more control over perf.
# So, how's it work?
This algorithm is intuitively simple (I think) but tricky to pull off, because there are lots of edge-cases.
In short: In the past, that information was hidden from the Differ: the differ didn't know if views were being reparented, it would see them
as entirely new views or as views being deleted if a View was flattened or unflattened. We very subtly change the information given to the differ:
all nodes are visible to the differ, but marked as Flattened or Unflattened. Thus, when the differ compares two nodes in the "old" and "new" tree,
it can tell not just if there are updates to the node but if it has been unflattened or flattened as well.
For example, take this tree, where * indicates that a View is flattened:
```
A
+
+----+---+
B* X
+ +
| |
+---+--+ +
E F Y
```
When the Differ asks for the children of A, in the past it would get a list `[E, F, X]`. That is, B* and X are both its children, but since B is flattened, it is omitted entirely from the list and
its children are substituted.
Now, when the Differ asks for the children of A, we give it this list instead: `[B*, E, F, X]`. That is: we give it a list which includes B, but B is marked as flattened.
Another wrinkle: A node `X` could have its children flattened, but still be a concrete view: so flattening/unflattening is a different operation from making a view "concrete" or "unconcrete", which can change independently of flattening.
There is one additional wrinkle: because of zIndex/stacking order, the children of `B` might not actually appear after `B` in the list. Depending on zIndex, a tree that looks like this:
```
A
+
+------+------+
B* C*
+ +
| |
+--+--+ +--+--+
D E F G
```
Could actually be linearized as: `[D G B* F C* E]` (as an extreme example; but basically all permutations as possible).
This is the reason, and the *only* reason that the inner Flattener/Unflattener
## The cases we need to handle
There are 7 cases/edge-cases of flattening and unflattening that we need to handle. Practically, all cases of reordering + flattening/unflattening, and taking recursive cases into account:
1. View A and A' (A in the old tree, A' in the new tree) are matched in the differ, and A* has been flattened or unflattened. These two cases are the easiest to handle.
2. View A' has been reordered with its siblings, and has been flattened or unflattened. These cases are slightly trickier to handle.
3. While flattening or unflattening, we encounter a child that has also been unflattened or flattened. So we need to handle four cases here in total: Flatten-Flatten, Flatten-Unflatten, Unflatten-Flatten, and Unflatten-Unflatten.
Other things to think about, also covered above:
1. Ordering. Views can be reordered and flattened/unflattened at the same time.
2. zIndex ordering: children in a certain order from the ShadowNode perspective may be stacked differently from a View perspective. We use the zIndex ordering for everything in the differ, and this prevents us from performing certain optimizations (see above: we cannot assume that children come after their parent in a list; they may come before, may be interwoven with children from other parents, etc).
# Perf Implications?
Practically, there should be very little negative overhead. There is some overhead in actually performing a flattening/unflattening operation, but... not much more than before. We don't use global maps, so the cost of flattening/unflattening is basically `O(number of nodes reparented)` - note that that's direct nodes reparented, *not* descendants.
tl;dr the perf hit should be similar to reordering, which is non-zero, but close to zero, and zero-cost for any diff operations on parts of the tree that don't involve flattening/unflattening. AFAICT this is very close to an ideal solution for that reason (but I wish it was simpler overall).
# In Summary?
I hope this works out and I think it could improve a number of things downstream: perf, LayoutAnimations, Bindings, certain crashes because of platform assumptions about mutations, etc.
Is it worth it? This new implementation is substantially harder to reason about, harder to read, and harder to understand. This is an important consideration. All I can say there is that I trust the test suite I've been using, but
the decreased readability is a big negative. Hopefully we can improve this in the future.
The rest is fiddly implementation details that I sincerely hope can be improved and simplified in the future.
# Followups?
The part that makes this algorithm the most expensive is that because of zIndex ordering, we cannot assume that children are linearized after their parents and so we rely more heavily on maps for the flattening/unflattening. Our TinyMap implementation should make these `find` operations fast enough unless trees' children are constantly being reordered, but it's still worth thinking of ways to make this even faster.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: shergin, mdvacca
Differential Revision: D23259341
fbshipit-source-id: 35d9b90caf262d601a31996ea2cb37e329c61ffc
Summary:
# Summary
In previous diffs earlier in 2020, we made changes to detect and optimize reordering of views when the order of views changed underneath the same parent.
However, until now we have ignored reparenting and there's evidence of issues because of that. Because Fabric flattens views more aggressively, reparenting is also marginally more likely to happen.
This diff introduces a very general Reparenting detection. It will work with view flattening/unflattening, as well as tree grafting - subtrees moved to entirely different parts of the tree, not just a single
parent disappearing or reappearing because of flattening/unflattening.
There is also another consideration: previously, we were generating strictly too many Create+Delete operations that were redundant and could cause consistency issues, crashes, or bugs on platforms that do not handle that gracefully -
especially since the ordering of the Create+Delete is not guaranteed (a reparented view could be created "first" and then the differ could later issue a "delete" for the same view).
Intuition behind how it works: we know the cases where we can detect reparenting: it's when nodes are *not* matched up with another node from the other tree, and we're either trying to delete an entire subtree, or create an entire subtree. For perf reasons, we generate whatever set of operations comes first (say, we generate all the Delete and Remove instructions) and take note in the `ReparentingMetadata` data-structure that Delete and/or Remove have been performed for each tag (if ordering is different, we do the same for Create+Insert if those come first). Then if we later detect a corresponding subtree creation/deletion, we don't generate those mutations and we mark the previous mutations for deletion. This incurs some map lookup cost, but this is only wasteful for commits where a large tree is deleted and a large tree is created, without reparenting.
We may be able to improve perf further for certain edge-cases in the future.
# Why can't we solve this in JS?
Two things:
1. We certainly can avoid reparenting situations in JS, but it's trickier than before because of Fabric's view flattening logic - product engineers would have to think much harder about how to prevent reparenting in the general case.
2. In the case of specific views like BottomSheet that may crash if they're reparented, the solution is to make sure that the BottomSheet and the first child of the BottomSheet is never memoized, so that lifecycle functions and render are called more often; and that in every render, the BottomSheet manually clones its child, so that when the Views are recreated, the child of the BottomSheet has a tag and is an entirely different instance. This is certainly possible to do but feels like an onerous requirement for product teams, and it could be challenging to track down every specific BottomSheet that is memoized and/or hoist them higher in the view hierarchy so they're not reparented as often.
Reviewed By: shergin
Differential Revision: D23123575
fbshipit-source-id: 2fa7e1f026f87b6f0c60cad469a3ba85cdc234de
Summary:
This diff moves fabric C++ code from ReactCommon/fabric to ReactCommon/react/renderer
As part of this diff I also refactored components, codegen and callsites on CatalystApp, FB4A and venice
Script: P137350694
changelog: [internal] internal refactor
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D22852139
fbshipit-source-id: f85310ba858b6afd81abfd9cbe6d70b28eca7415
Andres Suarez
Joshua Gross
David Vacca