Summary: Some of these were specified as relative but that makes the `top` value of layout incorrect. Surrounding in a div which is absolute so they all layout in the top left.
Differential Revision: D66275587
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1746
Chrome made some changes for how overflowed row-reverse containers are laid out which was causing some issues on CI. I updated them here and skipped the new failing tests which we would want to followup on.
For LTR, the differences are seen below
|Before|After|
|--|
|{F1962694149} | {F1962694151}|
The extra space is now extending past the flex start edge vs flex end. RTL is the opposite. NickGerleman had deviated from the spec back in the day to match Chrome and it seems they made the adjustment recently. T208209388 is tracking the followup to align with the spec again. Basically, there is a notion of fallback alignment when certain justification/alignment values cannot actually apply. Right now we are falling back to flex start in all cases but we should fallback to start sometimes.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D66138361
fbshipit-source-id: c46d2e9b0cd297069b9cc544e3bded995e4867a6
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1723
Adds gentest support for intrinsic sizing keywords and creates an initial batch of somewhat interesting tests for these keywords on `width`, `height`, `min-width`, `min-height`, `max-width`, `max-height`, and `flex-basis`
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D64145117
fbshipit-source-id: 1e3e7214fab062ab6f260cfe7bdfaf3c0aca3bf7
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/47035
This PR adds support for `display: contents` style by effectively skipping nodes with `display: contents` set during layout.
This required changes in the logic related to children traversal - before this PR a node would be always laid out in the context of its direct parent. After this PR that assumption is no longer true - `display: contents` allows nodes to be skipped, i.e.:
```html
<div id="node1">
<div id="node2" style="display: contents;">
<div id="node3" />
</div>
</div>
```
`node3` will be laid out as if it were a child of `node1`.
Because of this, iterating over direct children of a node is no longer correct to achieve the correct layout. This PR introduces `LayoutableChildren::Iterator` which can traverse the subtree of a given node in a way that nodes with `display: contents` are replaced with their concrete children.
A tree like this:
```mermaid
flowchart TD
A((A))
B((B))
C((C))
D((D))
E((E))
F((F))
G((G))
H((H))
I((I))
J((J))
A --> B
A --> C
B --> D
B --> E
C --> F
D --> G
F --> H
G --> I
H --> J
style B fill:https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/050
style C fill:https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/050
style D fill:https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/050
style H fill:https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/050
style I fill:https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/050
```
would be laid out as if the green nodes (ones with `display: contents`) did not exist. It also changes the logic where children were accessed by index to use the iterator instead as random access would be non-trivial to implement and it's not really necessary - the iteration was always sequential and indices were only used as boundaries.
There's one place where knowledge of layoutable children is required to calculate the gap. An optimization for this is for a node to keep a counter of how many `display: contents` nodes are its children. If there are none, a short path of just returning the size of the children vector can be taken, otherwise it needs to iterate over layoutable children and count them, since the structure may be complex.
One more major change this PR introduces is `cleanupContentsNodesRecursively`. Since nodes with `display: contents` would be entirely skipped during the layout pass, they would keep previous metrics, would be kept as dirty, and, in the case of nested `contents` nodes, would not be cloned, breaking `doesOwn` relation. All of this is handled in the new method which clones `contents` nodes recursively, sets empty layout, and marks them as clean and having a new layout so that it can be used on the React Native side.
Relies on https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1725
Changelog: [Internal]
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1726
Test Plan: Added tests for `display: contents` based on existing tests for `display: none` and ensured that all the tests were passing.
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D64404340
Pulled By: NickGerleman
fbshipit-source-id: f6f6e9a6fad82873f18c8a0ead58aad897df5d09
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1719
Right now there is no way to test fixtures with `auto` widths, heights, or flex basis - even though we expose those functions. I updated gentest to generate those functions. Notably, position and margin (the other auto-able props) already account for this.
I also created `YGAutoTest.html` to test this. Not really testing the capabilities of `auto` here, just if we can create a test about it.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D64125522
fbshipit-source-id: 291ec82003cf53f99c21943142a63e2ef30402a5
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1715
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/46799
Content box impl had a bug where we resolved padding % against the same reference length as the dimensions. Padding should always be against containing block's width. This is also true for width, but not for height, which should be against containing block's height.
This just pipes the width into our box sizing functions.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D63787577
fbshipit-source-id: e512338770f25b66506cabab5a7cde8f04397ea0
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/46741
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1711
box sizing is really just a reinterpretation of what length properties (like `width`, `height`, `max-width`, etc) mean. So to implement this I just add the border and padding if we are in content box when we ask for any of these properties. All the math that gets done by the algorithm is still in border box land, and the layout we return is to be interpreted as the border box (this is actually the expected behavior per https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#box-sizing). This makes this implementation pretty simple actually.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D63416833
fbshipit-source-id: fd76132cf51e8a5092129802c3a12ab24023018b
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/46428
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1696
We do not validate the aspect ratio to ensure it is non zero and non inf in a lot of places. Per the spec, these values should act like auto. There is no auto keyword, but it is the default so I just set the style to a default FloatOptional in this case
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D62473161
fbshipit-source-id: 6857de819538a7a87ce0a652e99f5a49992921ae
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/46216
Regarding [issue](https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/45817) with incorrect layout when `left` is set to `auto`. This PR introduces handling `auto` whenever inline or flex position is checked to be defined and it fixes above issue.
Changelog:
[General][Fixed] - Fix handling 'auto' checks in absolute layout
## Tests:
I have run the provided unit tests and everything passes.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1689
Reviewed By: cipolleschi
Differential Revision: D61737876
Pulled By: NickGerleman
fbshipit-source-id: 531199a91c5e122b930b49725ea567cbb1d592ce
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1673
Separate the generated Java tests from the non-generated ones, like all the other tests.
Reviewed By: javache
Differential Revision: D58989535
fbshipit-source-id: 4ffe92d079acdf3ba24731f7f1ef1ae6eba97da5
