This change changes the priority order of static styling.
Current priority:
```
(least priority)
- Static
- Component
- Directives
- Template
- Dynamic Binding
- Component
- Map/Interpolation
- Property
- Directives
- Map/Interpolation
- Property
- Template
- Map/Interpolation
- Property
(highest priority)
```
The issue with the above priority is this use case:
```
<div style="color: red;" directive-which-sets-color-blue>
```
In the above case the directive will win and the resulting color will be `blue`. However a small change of adding interpolation to the example like so. (Style interpolation is coming in https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/34202)
```
<div style="color: red; width: {{exp}}px" directive-which-sets-color-blue>
```
Changes the priority from static binding to interpolated binding which means now the resulting color is `red`. It is very surprising that adding an unrelated interpolation and style can change the `color` which was not changed. To fix that we need to make sure that the static values are associated with priority of the source (directive or template) where they were declared. The new resulting priority is:
```
(least priority)
- Component
- Static
- Map/Interpolation
- Property
- Directives
- Static
- Map/Interpolation
- Property
- Template
- Static
- Map/Interpolation
- Property
(highest priority)
```
PR Close#34938
NOTE: This change must be reverted with previous deletes so that it code remains in build-able state.
This change deletes old styling code and replaces it with a simplified styling algorithm.
The mental model for the new algorithm is:
- Create a linked list of styling bindings in the order of priority. All styling bindings ere executed in compiled order and than a linked list of bindings is created in priority order.
- Flush the style bindings at the end of `advance()` instruction. This implies that there are two flush events. One at the end of template `advance` instruction in the template. Second one at the end of `hostBindings` `advance` instruction when processing host bindings (if any).
- Each binding instructions effectively updates the string to represent the string at that location. Because most of the bindings are additive, this is a cheap strategy in most cases. In rare cases the strategy requires removing tokens from the styling up to this point. (We expect that to be rare case)S Because, the bindings are presorted in the order of priority, it is safe to resume the processing of the concatenated string from the last change binding.
PR Close#34616
Unlike in View Engine, we currently reset the dirty state of
components in the check no changes change detection cycle.
This means that components cannot be marked as dirty from
view lifecycle hooks because the dirty state is reset and
the lifecycle hooks do not run in the check no changes CD cycle.
PR Close#34495
This patch introduces a `firstUpdatePass` flag which can be used inside
of instruction code to determine if this is the first time each
instruction is running inside of the update block of a template or
a hostBindings function.
PR Close#31270
This commit is the final patch of the ivy styling algorithm refactor.
This patch swaps functionality from the old styling mechanism to the
new refactored code by changing the instruction code the compiler
generates and by pointing the runtime instruction code to the new
styling algorithm.
PR Close#30742
The Angular runtime frequently calls into user code (for example, when
writing to a property binding). Since user code can throw errors, calls to
it are frequently wrapped in a try-finally block. In Ivy, the following
pattern is common:
```typescript
enterView();
try {
callUserCode();
} finally {
leaveView();
}
```
This has a significant problem, however: `leaveView` has a side effect: it
calls any pending lifecycle hooks that might've been scheduled during the
current round of change detection. Generally it's a bad idea to run
lifecycle hooks after the application has crashed. The application is in an
inconsistent state - directives may not be instantiated fully, queries may
not be resolved, bindings may not have been applied, etc. Invariants that
the app code relies upon may not hold. Further crashes or broken behavior
are likely.
Frequently, lifecycle hooks are used to make assertions about these
invariants. When these assertions fail, they will throw and "swallow" the
original error, making debugging of the problem much more difficult.
This commit modifies `leaveView` to understand whether the application is
currently crashing, via a parameter `safeToRunHooks`. This parameter is set
by modifying the above pattern:
```typescript
enterView();
let safeToRunHooks = false;
try {
callUserCode();
safeToRunHooks = true;
} finally {
leaveView(..., safeToRunHooks);
}
```
If `callUserCode` crashes, then `safeToRunHooks` will never be set to `true`
and `leaveView` won't call any further user code. The original error will
then propagate back up the stack and be reported correctly. A test is added
to verify this behavior.
PR Close#31244
Moves most of the tests from `render3/integration_spec` into `acceptance`. Note that there are still a handful of tests left in render3, because we don't have a way of moving all of them to go through `TestBed` since they either have r3-specific assertions or we don't have access to the same APIs as the raw instructions.
PR Close#30461
Fixes `HostBinding` and `HostListener` declarations not being inherited from base classes that don't have an Angular decorator.
This PR resolves FW-1275.
PR Close#30158
Fixes view and content queries not being inherited in Ivy, if the base class hasn't been annotated with an Angular decorator (e.g. `Component` or `Directive`).
Also reworks the way the `ngBaseDef` is created so that it is added at the same point as the queries, rather than inside of the `Input` and `Output` decorators.
This PR partially resolves FW-1275. Support for host bindings will be added in a follow-up, because this PR is somewhat large as it is.
PR Close#30015
Angular supports having a component extend off of a parent component.
When this happens, all annotation-level data is inherited including styles
and classes. Up until now, Ivy only paid attention to static styling
values on the parent component and not the child component. This patch
ensures that both the parent's component and child component's styling
data is merged and rendered accordingly.
Jira Issue: FW-1081
PR Close#29015
Currently we only reset the `Attached` flag of a view if it is detached through its parent, however this means that if a root view is destroyed, its flag will never be reset. This manifested itself in one of the Material tests where we were destroying the root view.
This PR resolves FW-1130.
PR Close#29064
Prior to this fix if a root component was instantiated it create host
bindings, but never render them once update mode ran unless one or more
slot-allocated bindings were issued. Since styling in Ivy does not make
use of LView slots, the host bindings function never ran on the root
component.
This fix ensures that the `hostBindings` function does run for a root
component and also renders the schedlued styling instructions when
executed.
Jira Issue: FW-1062
PR Close#28664
Joey Perrott
Misko Hevery
Paul Gschwendtner
Matias Niemelä
crisbeto
Alex Rickabaugh
Kara Erickson
Marc Laval