-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
1.6.1+ build optimizer breaking bootstrap carousel transition effects #9231
Comments
can you provide the ng version output for the downgraded working setup? |
this is after downgrading to angular 1.6.0 where i dont need to disable the build optimizer
|
It appears the same version of the build optimizer (0.0.38) is being used in both cases. Something else must be affecting the output between version 1.6.0 and 1.6.1. We'll need to perform some additional investigation to narrow down the cause. Can you provide the versions of |
sorry are you able to tell me where i can find this information? i'm currently using the angular cli to create a new project and can't find any references to this in the package.json |
@rajravat run on project root: |
@Taha-Di-Nero thanks! uglify version when using cli 1.6.0: uglify version when using cli 1.6.4: looks like they are using the same version :( |
This is actually due to the You could try a newer version of bootstrap (latest for 3.x is 3.3.7). However, for including bootstrap (and since jQuery is already include this way in the sample project), using the bootstrap CDN will allow the application to work as intended and increase the likelihood of a visual performance increase for end users. (Due to a greatly increased likelihood of the file being cached.)
|
Another FIX (load css & js from /assets/ folder)
new index.html
Have a great day. |
Thanks @Ranboz , This fixed for me :) |
When we first started using Build Optimizer, we saw a lot of the savings were tied to using the Uglify/Terser `pure_getters` option. This was intimately related with the structure and shape of the Angular codebase. The measurements we did at the time on angular.io showed a significant size reduction, from 1mb to about 600kb. Of these roughly 150kb were tied to using `pure_getters` if I remember correctly. Meanwhile the Angular codebase has changed significantly and I don't really see these savings anymore, so I don't think it makes sense to keep it on given that it is known to cause problems with some libraries. Related to angular#9231, angular#11439, angular#12096.
When we first started using Build Optimizer, we saw a lot of the savings were tied to using the Uglify/Terser `pure_getters` option. This was intimately related with the structure and shape of the Angular codebase. The measurements we did at the time on angular.io showed a significant size reduction, from 1mb to about 600kb. Of these roughly 150kb were tied to using `pure_getters` if I remember correctly. Meanwhile the Angular codebase has changed significantly and I don't really see these savings anymore, so I don't think it makes sense to keep it on given that it is known to cause problems with some libraries. Closes angular#9231, angular#11439, angular#12096, angular#12128.
When we first started using Build Optimizer, we saw a lot of the savings were tied to using the Uglify/Terser `pure_getters` option. This was intimately related with the structure and shape of the Angular codebase. The measurements we did at the time on angular.io showed a significant size reduction, from 1mb to about 600kb. Of these roughly 150kb were tied to using `pure_getters` if I remember correctly. Meanwhile the Angular codebase has changed significantly and I don't really see these savings anymore, so I don't think it makes sense to keep it on given that it is known to cause problems with some libraries. Closes angular#9231, angular#11439, angular#12096, angular#12128.
When we first started using Build Optimizer, we saw a lot of the savings were tied to using the Uglify/Terser `pure_getters` option. This was intimately related with the structure and shape of the Angular codebase. The measurements we did at the time on angular.io showed a significant size reduction, from 1mb to about 600kb. Of these roughly 150kb were tied to using `pure_getters` if I remember correctly. Meanwhile the Angular codebase has changed significantly and I don't really see these savings anymore, so I don't think it makes sense to keep it on given that it is known to cause problems with some libraries. Closes #9231, #11439, #12096, #12128.
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
Versions
Repro steps
Observed behavior
Desired behavior
The transitions for the bootstrap carousel are very janky, i believe this is caused by the build optimizer and has been happening since cli 1.6.1+ (works fine with 1.6.0 and below), if you run ng server --prod --build-optimizer=false then the carousel transitions display correctly.
Is this a bug in the build optimizer? i'm currently working around this issue by downgrading to cli 1.6.0
Mention any other details that might be useful (optional)
The bootstrap version is 3.1.0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: