-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
Use containing block to adjust absolute child position #1472
Conversation
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
90a6bf8
to
027dd88
Compare
Summary: This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
027dd88
to
875bbbc
Compare
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
875bbbc
to
9942170
Compare
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
9942170
to
f0d4c5a
Compare
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
9bd3792
to
b5178c0
Compare
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
b5178c0
to
bc82095
Compare
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41369 One of the most basic aspects of statically positioned nodes is that [insets do not apply to them](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/position#static). So I put a guard inside `Node::relativePosition` where we take that into account when setting the position. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D50507808
…acebook#1470) Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41488 The way we plan on implementing `position: static` is by changing how we lay out absolutely positioned nodes. Instead of letting their direct parent lay them out we are going to let their containing block handle it. This is useful because by the time the containing block gets to this step it will already know its size, which is needed to ensure that absolute nodes can get the right value with percentage units. Additionally, it means that we can "translate" the position of the absolute nodes to be relative to their parent fairly easily, instead of some second pass that would not be possible with a different design. This change just gets the core pieces of this process going. It makes it so that containing blocks will layout out absolute descendants that they contain. We also pass in the containing block size to the owner size args for `layoutAbsoluteChild`. This new path will only happen if we have the errata turned off. If there is no positioned ancestor for a given node we just assume the root is. This is not exactly how it works on the web - there is a notion of an initial containing block - but we are not implementing that as of right now. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51182593
…ndants (facebook#1471) Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41489 If we are going to allow the containing block to layout its absolute descendants and NOT the direct parent then we need to change step 11 which is concerned with setting the trailing position in the case we are row or column reverse. This is the very last step in the function and is positioned that way because it operates on the assumption that all children have their position set by this time. That is no longer a valid assumption if CBs layout their absolute children. In that case the CB also needs to take care of setting the position here. Because of this problem I moved some things around. It now works like: * If errata is set, the direct parent will set trailing position for all non absolute children in step 11 * If errata is set the CB will set trailing position of absolute descendants after they are laid out inside of layoutAbsoluteDescendants Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51217291
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
bc82095
to
98bccf4
Compare
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D51224327 |
Summary: X-link: facebook/react-native#41490 X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327 fbshipit-source-id: ae6dc54fe2a71bebb4090ba21a0afb0125264cbc
Summary: Pull Request resolved: #41490 X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327 fbshipit-source-id: ae6dc54fe2a71bebb4090ba21a0afb0125264cbc
This pull request has been merged in e042cb1. |
Summary: Pull Request resolved: facebook#41490 X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327 fbshipit-source-id: ae6dc54fe2a71bebb4090ba21a0afb0125264cbc
Summary: X-link: facebook/yoga#1472 This change has most of the logic needed for supporting `position: static`. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test: 1) We pass in the containing node to `layoutAbsoluteChild` and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined. 2) We rewrite the absolute child's position to be relative to it's parent in the event that insets are defined for that child (and thus it is positioned relative to its CB). Yoga's layout position has always be relative to parent, so I feel it is easier to just adjust the coordinates of a node to adhere to that design rather than change the consumers of yoga. The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in `layoutAbsoluteDescendants`. Reviewed By: NickGerleman Differential Revision: D51224327
Summary:
This change has most of the logic needed for supporting
position: static
. We do two things here that fix a lot of the broken static test:layoutAbsoluteChild
and use it to properly position the child in the case that insets are defined.The "hard" part of this algorithm is determining how to iterate the offset from the containing block needed to do this translation described above. That is handled in
layoutAbsoluteDescendants
.Differential Revision: D51224327