Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1593
X-link: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/pull/43417
There was a bug where we did not position absolute nodes correctly if the static node had a different main/cross axis from the containing node. This fixes that. The change is somewhat complicated unfortunately but I tried to add sufficient comments to explain what is happening
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D54703955
fbshipit-source-id: 096c643f61d4f9bb3ee6278d675ebd69b57350d7
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/yoga/pull/1488
These were disabled when they were written because they were broken. The recent changes made them pass now so lets enable them. I also added another test that is already passing
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D51404875
fbshipit-source-id: ed10004968b871c1d033640d75138f00afc15968
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:
Doing some test-driven-development to support this feature, so I will start by adding a ton of tests to ensure the nuance of position: static is captured in Yoga. Specifically I have a slew of tests to capture:
* Insets have no effect on static elements
* Insets are relative to the nearest non-static ancestor
* Percentage values for insets, padding, and margin of absolute children respect the correct dimension of the nearest non-static ancestor
* Also added similar ones for static and relative children which should just respect their ancestor (static only because it is a flexbox by default)
* This rule does NOT apply to border
* The containing block for absolute children is the padding box of their nearest non-static ancestor
* The containing block for static children is the content box of their parent (because all elements are flex containers in yoga, at least right now)
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50475939
fbshipit-source-id: 7988ffc9bea3317875128dd1908d787b9b714a45
Summary:
I am about to embark on supporting `position: static` in Yoga. The enum exists already (and is the default position type, lol) but does not actually do anything and just behaves like `position: relative`.
My approach here is to write a bunch of tests to test for the various behaviors of static positions and then develop on Yoga afterwards to get those tests passing. To do this, we need to make a few changes to the gentest files as there is not support for adding `position: static` at the moment:
* Make it so that the gentest code can physically write `YGPositionTypeStatic` if it encounters `position: static` in the style
* Make it so that gentest.js knows that Yoga's default is actually static. This way the code generated in the tests will actually label nodes for non default values
* Explicitly label the position type even when it is not declared in the style prop (with the exception of the default)
* Regenerate all the tests
Additionally I added the first, basic test: making sure insets do nothing on a statically positioned element.
Reviewed By: NickGerleman
Differential Revision: D50437855
fbshipit-source-id: 0e8bbf1c224d477ea4592b7563d0b70d2ffa79c8
