-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Update transitions #65
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The behavior of some of the tests has changed, looking at them locally, but it looks like the behavior had already changed on master as well. Specifically, the nested wormholes test changes before and after this change. Will need to dive back in to figure out what I was thinking at the time, and why the cloning existed in the first place. It was there for a reason, that's all I can really say 😕 |
Sorry, the only test I modified was Give it a try with my changes to transitions/wormhole.js. I feel animating the clone isn't ideal, because if the component is changing during animation (say in-viewport detection) it's element is hidden and the changes aren't displayed. The static DOM copy is what is animating. If you need two elements in there, perhaps you can animate the live copy? and use the static one as the placeholder, which I assume might be the reason it's there? Let me know if there is anything else I can lend a hand with. |
What I meant was when I ran the test suite locally before and after this change, there were some visual differences even though the tests passed. The tests were not that comprehensive when I wrote them, I don’t really trust them without an actual visual audit. However, that audit also appears to have failed prior to this change, as in something else caused a change before this PR. So, they’re broken, and this PR breaks them further. I 100% agree that the cloning is bad, I have wanted to rewrite it for years now, but I need to do my due diligence here and make sure we aren’t breaking people’s apps. I’m not sure when I’ll have time to dive back in and figure out why I added it in the first place, or what caused the inital breakage, but I want to be thorough here. If you’d like to do that investigation, happy to work with you through that process (and definitely add more tests). |
I took a stab at doing a bit of clean up in my update-dependancies branch https://github.com/edeis53/liquid-wormhole/tree/update-dependencies I upgraded to Ember 3.7, changed the markdown compiler to get rid of babel deprecations, and removed jquery. Inserting of the wormhole elements went well on transition in, but there was a bit of a state issue on the component with switching to vanilla js for inserting the component on the transition out, which wasn't an issue with jquery. I'm still not 100% on how you have those parts designed and why it works the way it does. Even though I was using vanilla javascript methods that were suppose to be the same as the jquery equivalents, there were some querks on how it handles the dom elements. For my current project, my fork (pre-jquery removal attempt #0931445) works awesome and I don't see any issues yet. I'm going to go with that for now. I'll give you a chance to revisit a bit, as will I as I get more experience integrating liquid-wormhole. |
@danDanV1 Hello! I realize this is very old now, but I just got everything updated to modern Ember and with embroider support. Would you be interested in rebasing and continuing this work? |
Transitions are cleaned up to remove now redundant duplication of DOM elements.
One test updated as there are no longer two elements in the DOM.
All tests pass.
All the transitions in the dummy app work just fine.... Except ....!! One unrelated error to note, after forking and doing a local install BEFORE making any changes, the sending components demo
http://localhost:4200/#/docs/components
was throwing an error. So I wasn't able to visually test that !!And some changes in the commits are due to vscode/prettier formatting the code.
Fixes issue:
#64