Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1547
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/42251
Yoga has an odd behavior, where `start`/`end` edges under row-reverse are relative to flex-direction, instead of writing direction.
While Yoga doesn't actually document what this behavior is supposed to be, it goes against CK documentation, historic RN documentation, and the behavior valid on the web. It is also applied inconsistently (e.g. sometimes only on container, sometimes on child). It really is a bug, instead of an intended behavior.
We changed the default behavior for Yoga, but left the existing one behind an errata (so existing fbsource users got old behavior). We have previously seen this behavior show up in product code, including CK when running on FlexLayout.
`row-reverse` is surprisingly uncommon though:
1. Litho has <40 usages
2. RN has ~40 usages in `RKJSModules`,~30 in `arvr/js`, ~6 in `xplat/archon`
3. CK has ~80 usages
4. NT has ~40 usages
There are few enough, mostly simple components, that we can inspect through each of them, looking for signs they will hit the issue (at the potential chance of missing some).
CK accounts for 10/14 usages that I could tell would trigger the issue, since it only exposes start/end edge, and not left/right. It might make sense to make it preserve behavior instead, to reduce risk a bit.
FlexLayout is now separately powering Bloks, which wasn't surveyed, so I didn't touch CK behavior under Bloks.
There could also be other usages in other frameworks/bespoke usages, and this has implications for OSS users. But based on our own usage, of many, many components, this seems rare.
Changelog:
[General][Breaking] - Make `start/end` in styles always refer to writing direction
Reviewed By: pentiumao, joevilches
Differential Revision: D52698130
fbshipit-source-id: 2a9ac47e177469f30dc988d916b6c0ad95d53461
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/42191
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1539
React native supports transforms and if a node has a transform it will [form a containing block for absolute descendants regardless of position type](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Containing_block#identifying_the_containing_block). So we need to pass that information into Yoga to ensure this happens.
The verbiage for the field "alwaysFormsContainingBlock" is very specific. In a vacuum a node cannot simply "form a containing block". It only forms a containing block in reference to a different node. This can be illustrated in a scenario where we have a static node that is a flex container which has 1 absolute child and 1 relative child. This static node will form a containing block for the relative child but not the absolute one. We could just pass the information on rather something has a transform or not but Yoga is not supposed to know about transforms in general. As a result we have a notion of "always" forming a containing block. Since Yoga is a flexbox spec, non-absolute nodes' containing blocks will ways be their parent. If we add something like a transform to a node then that will also apply to absolute nodes - hence we can say the node will **always** form a CB, no matter who is the descendant.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D52521160
fbshipit-source-id: bab9319ffddec617f5281823930f2a00cc2967f2
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1533
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/42031
I have some reservations about some of the conditional setting of trailing position in general, and some of the repeated transformations that neccesitates this, but these functions don't belong in `CalculateLayout.h`. For now, just move these to their own header.
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D52292121
fbshipit-source-id: 4a998a4390a8d045af45f5424adaf049ed635e7a
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41995
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1526
This function has made quite the journey from something that originally made more sense. This renames, refactors, and adds documentation for what it actually does.
This should eventually make its way into `yoga::Style` once computed style is moved into that structure.
bypass-github-export-checks
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D52105718
fbshipit-source-id: 6492224dd2e10cef3c5fc6a139323ad189a0925c
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41939
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1520
This code originates as `YGValueResolve`, used to compute a YGValue to a length in points, using a reference for 100%.
This moves it to `Style::Length`, so we can encapsulate parts of it (for style value functions), and make the API more cohesive now that we can do C++ style OOP with it.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D51796973
fbshipit-source-id: a7c359c7544f4bd2066a80d976dde67a0d16f1dd
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41776
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1492
# Summary
In preparation to replace `CompactValue`, this fully encapsulates it as an implementation detail of `yoga::Style`.
The internal API now always operates on `Style::Length`, converted to `YGValue` at the public API boundary.
In the next step, we can plug in a new representation within `Style`, which should enable 64 bit values, and lower memory usage.
# Test Plan
1. Existing tests (inc for style, invalidation, CompactValue) pass
2. Check that constexpr `yoga::isinf()` produces same assembly under Clang as `std::isinf()`
3. Fabric Android builds
4. Yoga benchmark does style reads
# Performance
Checking whether a style is defined, then reading after, is a hot path, and we are doubling any space style lengths take in the stack (but not long-term on the node). After a naive move, on one system, the Yoga benchmark creating, laying out, and destroying a tree, ran about 8-10% slower in the "Huge nested flex" example. We are converting in many more cases instead of doing undefined check, but operating on accessed style values no longer needs to do the conversion multiple times.
I changed the `CompactValue` conversion to YGValue/StyleLength path to check for undefined as the common case (since we always convert, instead of calling `isUndefined` directly on CompactValue. That seemed to get the difference down to ~5-6% when I was playing with it then. We can optimistically make some of this up with ValuePool giving better locality, and fix this more holistically if we reduce edge and value resolution.
On another machine where I tested this, the new revision went the opposite direction, and was about 5% faster, so this isn't really a cut and dry regression, but we see different characteristics than before.
# Changelog
[Internal]
Reviewed By: rozele
Differential Revision: D51775346
fbshipit-source-id: c618af41b4882b4a227c917fcad07375806faf78
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41964
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1524
D52087013 (#1513) fixed some issues, including where measuring under max-content or fit-content, align-content stretch would consume the entire available cross-dimensions, instead of only sizing to definite dimension, like the spec dicates.
I missed a case, where flexbox considers a container as having a definite cross-size if it is being stretched, even if it doesn't have a definite length.
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/#definite-sizes
> 3. Once the cross size of a flex line has been determined, items in auto-sized flex containers are also considered definite for the purpose of layout;
> 1. If a single-line flex container has a definite cross size, the outer cross size of any stretched flex items is the flex container’s inner cross size (clamped to the flex item’s min and max cross size) and is considered definite.
We handle `align-items: stretch` of a flex container after cross-size determination by laying out the child under stretch-fit (previously YGMeasureModeExactly) constraint. This checks that case, and sizing the line container to specified cross-dim if we are told to stretch to it.
We could probably afford to merge this a bit with later with what is currently step 9, where we end up redoing some of this same math.
Reviewed By: yungsters
Differential Revision: D52234980
fbshipit-source-id: 475773a352fd01f63a4b21e93a55519726dc0da7
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1513
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41916
Fixes https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/1300
Fixes https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/1008
This fixes a smattering of issues related to both sizing and aligment of multi-line-containers:
1. We were previously incorrectly bounding the size of each flex line to the min/max of the entire container.
2. Per-line leads were sometimes incorrectly contributing to alignment within the line
3. The cross dim size used for multi-line alignment is not correct, or correctly clamped. If the available size comes from a max constraint, that was incorrectly used instead of a definite size, or size of content. Leads were entirely skipped for min constraint.
Need to test how breaking this is, to see if it might need to go behind an errata.
See related PRs:
1. https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1491
2. https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1493
3. https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1013
Changelog:
[General][Fixed] - Fix Yoga sizing and alignment issues with multi-line containers
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D52087013
fbshipit-source-id: 8d95ad17e58c1fec1cceab9756413d0b3bd4cd8f
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1490
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41692
In the previous diffs I fixed problems with justifying absolute nodes. The same issues plague aligning so I fixed them in the same way. Added tests that were failing before but now passing
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51404489
fbshipit-source-id: 604495d651eb67cfdcca40df9d8d3a125c5741a8
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1487
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41691
The code here was just wrong. I changed it to be the same logic as the Justify:FlexStart case, but with the flex end sides. Then I get the position for the opposite edge since we need to write to flex start side.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51383792
fbshipit-source-id: 372835a44edff361dbd84dd92ff9f2ec844b9f9c
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1489
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41690
Centering involves centering the margin box in the content box of the parent, and then getting the distance from the flex start edge of the parent to the child
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51383625
fbshipit-source-id: 6bbbace95689ef39c35303bea4b99505952df457
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1485
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41686
The size of the containing block is the size of the padding box of the containing node for absolute nodes. We were looking at `containingNode->getLayout().measuredDimension(Dimension::Width)` which is the border box. So we need to subtract the border from this.
Added a test that was failing before this change as well
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51330526
fbshipit-source-id: adc448dfb71b54f1bbed0d9d61c5553bda4b106c
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1482
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41685
This is the final step (that I know of) to get the core features of static working. Here we turn on all of the tests and pass down the correct owner size for the call to `calculateLayoutInternal` that is in `layoutAbsoluteChild`
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51293606
fbshipit-source-id: 972259e7ebecb19b55aef2ef866bd7cb57aaf0ca
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1481
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41684
Absolute nodes can be laid out by themselves and do not have to care about what is happening to their siblings. Because of this we can make `positionAbsoluteChild` the sole place where we handle this logic. Right now that is scattered around algorithm with many `if (child is absolute)` cases everywhere. This makes implementing position static a lot harder since we are relying on the CB to do all this work, not the parent.
With this change the only time we set position for an absolute node and it matter (i.e. not overwritten) is in `positionAbsoluteChild`
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51290723
fbshipit-source-id: 405d81b1d28826cbb0323dc117c406a44d381dff
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1495
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41794
This is a copy of D51369722 to make it so that it preserves the file history
CalculateLayout.cpp is massive and approaching 3k lines. I added a few large functions dealing with layout of absolute nodes and was thinking it would be nice if that logic was just in its own file so it was more isolated and easier to reason about. So I made AbsoluteLayout.cpp and AbsoluteLayout.h to house this logic. In order for this to work I had to expose calculateLayoutInternal in CalculateLayout.h as layoutAbsoluteChild calls it. This is unideal and I would like to find a better way...
I also make LayoutUtils.h to house misc small helper methods as they are called in AbsoluteLayout.cpp and CalculateLayout.cpp
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51824115
fbshipit-source-id: 9b27449e3c1516492c01e6167a6b2c4568a33807
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1479
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41682
There are two ways to get the value of a style for a specific edge right now:
1) From the inline start/end edge which is determined via the writing direction (ltr or rtl), assuming you do not have errata on
2) From the flex start/end edge which is determined via the flex direction (row, row-reverse, column, column-reverse)
There is a weird curiosity in the second case: you can define a style to be on the "start" or "end" edge when writing the stylex/css. The physical edge that this refers to is dependent on the writing direction. So `start` would be `left` in `ltr` and `right` in `rtl`, with `end` the opposite. It is **never** determined via the flex direction. Additionally, `start`/`end` takes precedence over the physical edge it corresponds to in the case both are defined.
So, all of this means that to actually get the value of a style from the flex start/end edges, we need to account for the case that one of these relative edges was defined and would overwrite any physical edge. Since this mapping is solely determined by the writing direction, we need to pass that in to all the flex start/end getters and do that logic. This is done in `flexStartRelativeEdge`/`flexEndRelativeEdge` which was added earlier but for some reason only being used on border.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51293315
fbshipit-source-id: 26fafff54827134e7c5b10354ff9bfdf67096f5b
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1473
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41491
To simplify the logic a bit I introduce a new function called `positionAbsoluteChild`. This function will, eventually, be the **sole function that matters** when determining the layout position of an absolute node. Because [absolute nodes do not participate in flex layout](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#abspos-items), we can determine the position of said node independently of its siblings. The only information we need are the node itself, its parent, and its containing block - which we have all of in `layoutAbsoluteChild`.
Right now, however, this is purely a BE change with no functionality different. There was a big set of if statements at the end of `layoutAbsoluteChild` that would position the node on the main and cross axis for certain cases. The old code had it so that the main and cross axis had basically the same logic but the code was repeated. This puts that logic, as is, in `positionAbsoluteChild` and calls that from `layoutAbsoluteChild`.
I will soon edit this function to actually do what it is envisioned to do (i.e. be the sole place that position is set for absolute nodes).
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51272855
fbshipit-source-id: 68fa1f0e0f4d595faf2af1d9eaceb467382ca406
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41490
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/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: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41489
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1471
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
fbshipit-source-id: a7eea0d3623f9041b73d609a1de2bfb0f0343a26
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41488
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1470
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
fbshipit-source-id: 88b5730f7f4fec4f33ec64288618e23363091857
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41391
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1461
Converts usages of `YGEdge` within internal APIs to `yoga::Edge` scoped enum.
With the exception of YGUnit which is in its own state of transition, this is the last public yoga enum to need to be moved to scoped enum form for usages internal to the Yoga public API.
Changelog: [internal]
Reviewed By: rshest
Differential Revision: D51152779
fbshipit-source-id: 06554f67bfd7709cbc24fdd9a5474e897e9e95d8
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41390
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1460
Yoga passes `MeasureMode`/`YGMeasureMode` to express constraints in how a box should be measured, given definite or indefinite available space.
This is modeled after Android [MeasureSpec](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/View.MeasureSpec), with a table above `calculateLayoutImpl()` explaining the CSS terms they map to. This can be confusing when flipping between the spec, and code.
This switches internal usages to the CSS terms, but leaves around `YGMeasureMode` since it is the public API passed to measure functions.
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D51068417
fbshipit-source-id: 0a76266a4e7e0cc39996164607229c3c41de2818
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41392
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1458
We're moving `CompactValue` to be an internal detail of `yoga::Style`, where users outside of the style will be dealing with a resolved/non-compact representation.
This change renames usages of `CompactValue` to `Style::Length`, which will be Yoga's representation for CSS input lengths. Right now one is just a type alias of the other, but this will let us change the internals of CompactValue with the rest of the world looking the same.
A few factory functions are added to `yoga::value` for creating CSS values. There are some shenanigans around how we want to represent CSS pixels (one YGUnitPoint), when we also end up adding CSS points (slightly larger than one YGUnitPoint). For now, I reused `point` until making other changes.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: yungsters
Differential Revision: D51000389
fbshipit-source-id: 00f55e72bfb8aa291b53308f8a62ac8797be490f
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41347
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1453
This follows the previous patterns used for `Gutters` and `Dimension`, where we hide CompactValue array implementation from `yoga::Style` callers.
This allows a single read of a style to only need access to the resolved values of a single edge, vs all edges. This is cheap now because the interface is the representation, but gets expensive if `StyleValuePool` is the actual implementation.
This prevents us from needing to resolve nine dimensions, in order to read a single value like `marginLeft`. Doing this, in the new style, also lets us remove `IdxRef` from the API.
We unroll the structure dependent parts in the props parsing code, for something more verbose, but also a bit clearer.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: joevilches
Differential Revision: D50998164
fbshipit-source-id: 248396f9587e29d62cde05ae7512d8194f60c809
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41293
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1446
NickGerleman pointed out that my recent changes to fix the slew of row-reverse problems in Yoga actually ended up regressing some parts. Specifically, absolute children of row-reverse containers would have their insets set to the wrong side. So if you set left: 10 it would apply it to the right.
Turns out, in `layoutAbsoluteChild` there were cases where we were applying inlineStart/End values to the flexStart/End edge, which can never be right. So I changed the values to also be flexStart/End as the fix here.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50945475
fbshipit-source-id: 290de06dcc04e8e644a3a32c127af12fdabb2f75
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41209
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1439
There are so many instances in this code base where we use the double negative of `!yoga::isUndefined(<something>)`. This is not as easy to read since because of this double negative imo. Additionally, sometimes we have really long chains like `!longVariableName.longFunctionName(longArgumentName).isUndefined()` and it is hard to see that this undefined is inverted.
This just replaces all instances of inverted `isUndefined()` with `isDefined()` so its easier to read.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50705523
fbshipit-source-id: edc7d3f2cbbae38ddaeb2030a419320caf73feff
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1437
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41208
Reading through the sizing logic and this seemed a bit redundant/confusing. Lets use the same function we just used for the main axis for the cross axis as well so people do not think its special. Also we will need one less variable. The reason this was done it seems is because we need the leading padding + border elsewhere so this is technically a few less steps but this is cleaner
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50704177
fbshipit-source-id: 1a091edbfee6482a2bf472aca2980702bd75ad94
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1431
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41041
The last of the row-reverse issues hurray!
The position insets were broken with row-reverse since we were using the main-start/main-end edges to inset from and NOT the inline-start/inline-end edges as we should. This made it so that inset in left and right were swapped and same with top and bottom (with column-reverse). The solution here is the same as the previous ones were we are migrating to using inline-start/end as the leading/trailing edge now.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50390543
fbshipit-source-id: b714deab8489fbe11f7f6db21e4aad3b3aa314b3
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41019
### Changes made
- Regenerated tests (as some aspect ratio tests seem to be out of date compared to the fixtures)
- Added SpaceEvenly variant to the "Align" enums (via enums.py)
- Implemented `align-content: space-evenly` alignment in CalculateLayout.cpp
- Added generated tests `align-content: space-evenly`
- Updated NumericBitfield test to account for the fact that the Align enum now requires more bits (this bit could do with being reviewed as I am not 100% certain that it's valid to just update the test like this).
### Changes not made
- Any attempt to improve the spec-compliance of content alignment in general (e.g. I think https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1013 probably still needs to happen)
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1422
Reviewed By: yungsters
Differential Revision: D50305438
Pulled By: NickGerleman
fbshipit-source-id: ef9f6f14220a0db066bc30db8dd690a4a82a0b00
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41023
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1426
Just like D50140503 where marginStart and marginEnd were not working with row reverse, paddingStart and paddingEnd are not working either with row reverse either. The solution is similar - we were checking the flex item layout starting/ending edges and not the general layout starting/ending edges. This change makes it so that we look at the proper edge according to what direction is set.
One caveat is that in the case of padding (and also border) there is a callsite that actually wants to get the flex item layout's leading/trailing padding and not the one dictated by direction. So, I made a new function to accommodate this and just swapped that callsite out.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50348995
fbshipit-source-id: 85717df23de7cf5f66b38d3ff28435b053a4e68e
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41022
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1425
Just like D50140503 where marginStart and marginEnd were not working with row reverse, borderStart and borderEnd are not working either with row reverse either. The solution is similar - we were checking the flex item layout starting/ending edges and not the general layout starting/ending edges. This change makes it so that we look at the proper edge according to what direction is set.
One caveat is that in the case of border (and also padding) there is a callsite that actually wants to get the flex item layout's leading/trailing border and not the one dictated by direction. So, I made a new function to accommodate this and just swapped that callsite out.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50348085
fbshipit-source-id: eca2702c1753dbebb503034e2f0732684ad6c56e
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1423
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/41017
Before resolving https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/1208 yoga was in a state where "leading" and "trailing" only referred to the main-start and main-end directions ([definition in spec](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#box-model)). That is, the start/end of the layout of flex items in a container. This is distinct from something like inline-start/inline-end which is the [start of text layout as defined by direction](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#inline-start).
The bug linked above happened because "leading" and "trailing" functions are referring to the wrong directions in certain cases. So in order to fix this we added a new set of functions to get the "leading" and "trailing" edges according to what inline-start/inline-end would refer to - i.e. those defined by the direction (ltr | rtl). In this state I think it is confusing to understand which function refers to which direction and more specific names could help that.
This diff just renames the following 4 FlexDirection.h functions:
* **leadingEdge** -> **flexStartEdge**
* **trailingEdge** -> **flexEndEdge**
* **leadingLayoutEdge** -> **inlineStartEdge**
* **trailingLayoutEdge** -> **inlineEndEdge**
The spec calls the start/end directions as dictated by the flex-direction attribute "main-start" and "main-end" respectively, but mainStartEdge might be a bit confusing given it will be compared to a non-flexbox-specific name in inlineStartEdge. As a result I landed on flexStart/flexEnd similar to what values are used with alignment attributes (justify-content, align-content).
I chose to get rid of the "leading" and "trailing" descriptors to be more in line with what terminology the spec uses.
Next diff will be to rename the functions in Node.cpp to adhere to the above patterns.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50342254
fbshipit-source-id: 1e83a885876af9cf363822ebdbb64537f4784520
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/litho/pull/962
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/40804
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1420
This stack is ultimately aiming to solve https://github.com/facebook/yoga/issues/1208
**The problem**
Turns out that we do not even check direction when determining which edge is the leading (start) and trailing (end) edges. This is not how web does it as the start/end is based on the writing direction NOT the flex direction: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_flexible_box_layout/Basic_concepts_of_flexbox#start_and_end_lines. While web does not have marginStart and marginEnd, they do have margin-inline-start/end which relies on the writing mode to determine the "start"/"end": https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/margin-inline-start.
This means that if you do something like
```
export default function Playground(props: Props): React.Node {
return (
<View style={styles.container}>
<View style={styles.item} />
</View>
);
}
const styles = StyleSheet.create({
container: {
marginEnd: 100,
flexDirection: 'row-reverse',
backgroundColor: 'red',
display: 'flex',
width: 100,
height: 100,
},
item: {
backgroundColor: 'blue',
width: 10,
},
});
```
You get {F1116264350}
As you can see the margin gets applied to the left edge even thought the direction is ltr and it should be applied to the right edge.
**The solution**
I ended up fixing this by creating a new `leadingLayoutEdge` and `trailingLayoutEdge` function that take the flex direction as well as the direction. Based on the errata, the a few functions will use these new functions to determine which `YGEdge` is the starting/ending.
You might be wondering why I did not put this logic inside of `leadingEdge(flexDirection)` / `trailingEdge(flexDirection)` since other areas could potentially have the same bug like `getLeadingPadding`. These functions are a bit overloaded and there are cases where we actually want to use the flexDirection to get the edge in question. For example, many of the calls to `setLayoutPosition` in `CalculateLayout.cpp` call `leadingEdge()` / `trailingEdge()` to set the proper position for cases like row-reverse where items need to line up in a different direction.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50140503
fbshipit-source-id: 5b580c7570f6ae1e2d031971926ac4e8f52dd362
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1411
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/39796
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1414
GCC flags that `isUndefined()` is not declared `constexpr` but that `unwrapOrDefault()` is. `std::isnan` is not constexpr until C++ 23 (because we cannot have nice things), so I made `yoga::isUndefined()` constexpr, using the same code `std::isnan()` boils down to. I then made `FloatOptional` depend on `Comparison.h` (instead of the other way around), so we can use it.
Note that the use of the `std::floating_point` concept here requires the libc++ bump in the previous diff in the stack.
Reviewed By: yungsters
Differential Revision: D49896837
fbshipit-source-id: 61e2bbbfedecffd007a12d42d998e43d3cf5119c
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/39595
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1404
These functions all ensure their returns are defined, but return FloatOptional anyway, making their callers have to deal with that possibility. Return `float` instead of `FloatOptional`, and do some additional cleanup.
Reviewed By: rshest
Differential Revision: D49531421
fbshipit-source-id: 95b21cade74e501dd54c7b6ca667c8c3859c5dae
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/39597
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1406
Similar in vain to D49362819, we want to stop exposing pre-resolved CompactValue, and allow enum class usage without becoming annoying.
This also simplifies gap resolution a bit. I moved this to Style, to make it clear we aren't relying on any node state. I plan to do some similar cleanup for other resolution later.
Reviewed By: rshest
Differential Revision: D49530923
fbshipit-source-id: 47b06a7301fb283acc493dba159f496159d59580
Summary:
If the first element of a line is not contributing (e.g. position absolute), an additional gap will be added to the line, because the first gap element of the line is never identified (wrong start index).
Fix: raise the index of the first line element until we find an element that is contributing to the line.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1408
Reviewed By: yungsters
Differential Revision: D49722065
Pulled By: NickGerleman
fbshipit-source-id: 1068cb0b11ae4b04ec8d063e70540cce06181d5a
Summary:
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/39598
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1403
Replaces all usages of YGDimension with Dimension.
Adds `yoga::to_underlying` to act like `std::to_underlying`, added in C++ 23.
This enum is oddly only used internally, and is never an input to the public API, but it handled as any other public generated enum. Potentially some more cleanup to do there.
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: rshest
Differential Revision: D49475409
fbshipit-source-id: 7d4c31e8a84485baea0dab50b5cf16b86769fa07
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1402
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/39567
This change hides away most usages of YGDimension as an index. We do this for a couple reasons:
1. Right now the style interface may return a full array of resolved edge or dimension values, as a CompactValue. As we abstract away from CompactValue, and move towards ValuePool, this will no longer be the internal interface, and cheap to return. We instead change the interface to return a single value at once, which lets us resolve values lazily.
2. As we move internal usage to scoped enums, enums are not implicitly convertible to intergers (broadly a good thing). Hiding the enum as index prevents the need for callers to cast or convert to underlying.
Instead of making a new version of `IdxRef` for this, I converted to a more traditional setter. I will be making similar changes later for other styles, when I hide CompactValue from the public interface.
To review I would recommend filtering to changes in `xplat`, or viewing this in a single one of the OSS PRs exported. Everything apart from the below 20 files is a mirror.
{F1096792573}
Changelog: [Internal]
Reviewed By: javache
Differential Revision: D49362819
fbshipit-source-id: 30d730d78e62f36597d43f477120f65694e51ea3
