Previously all static styling information (including the ones from component/directive host bindings) would get merged into a single value before it would be written into the `@Input('class'/'style')`. The new behavior specifically excludes host values from the `@Input` bindings.
Fix#35383
PR Close#35889
`TNode.directives` was introduced in https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/34938. Turns out that it is unnecessary because the information is already present it `TData` when combining with `TNode.directiveStart` and `TNode.directiveEnd`
Mainly this is true (conceptually):
```
expect(tNode.directives).toEqual(
tData.slice(
tNode.directivesStart,
tNode.directivesEnd - tNode.DirectivesStart -1
)
);
```
The refactoring removes `TNode.directives` and adds `TNode.directiveStyling` as we still need to keep location in the directive in `TNode`
PR Close#35050
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
Previously we would write to class/style as strings `element.className` and `element.style.cssText`. Turns out that approach is good for initial render but not good for updates. Updates using this approach are problematic because we have to check to see if there was an out of bound write to style and than perform reconciliation. This also requires the browser to bring up CSS parser which is expensive.
Another problem with old approach is that we had to queue the DOM writes and flush them twice. Once on element advance instruction and once in `hostBindings`. The double flushing is expensive but it also means that a directive can observe that styles are not yet written (they are written after directive executes.)
The new approach uses `element.classList.add/remove` and `element.style.setProperty/removeProperty` API for updates only (it continues to use `element.className` and `element.style.cssText` for initial render as it is cheaper.) The other change is that the styling changes are applied immediately (no queueing). This means that it is the instruction which computes priority. In some circumstances it may result in intermediate writes which are than overwritten with new value. (This should be rare)
Overall this change deletes most of the previous code and replaces it with new simplified implement. The simplification results in code savings.
PR Close#34804
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
The `computeStaticStyling` will be used for computing static styling value during `firstCreatePass`.
The function takes into account static styling from the template as well as from the host bindings. The host bindings need to be merged in front of the template so that they have the correct priority.
PR Closes#34418
This change moves information from instructions to declarative position:
- `ɵɵallocHostVars(vars)` => `DirectiveDef.hostVars`
- `ɵɵelementHostAttrs(attrs)` => `DirectiveDef.hostAttrs`
When merging directives it is necessary to know about `hostVars` and `hostAttrs`. Before this change the information was stored in the `hostBindings` function. This was problematic, because in order to get to the information the `hostBindings` would have to be executed. In order for `hostBindings` to be executed the directives would have to be instantiated. This means that the directive instantiation would happen before we had knowledge about the `hostAttrs` and as a result the directive could observe in the constructor that not all of the `hostAttrs` have been applied. This further complicates the runtime as we have to apply `hostAttrs` in parts over many invocations.
`ɵɵallocHostVars` was unnecessarily complicated because it would have to update the `LView` (and Blueprint) while existing directives are already executing. By moving it out of `hostBindings` function we can access it statically and we can create correct `LView` (and Blueprint) in a single pass.
This change only changes how the instructions are generated, but does not change the runtime much. (We cheat by emulating the old behavior by calling `ɵɵallocHostVars` and `ɵɵelementHostAttrs`) Subsequent change will refactor the runtime to take advantage of the static information.
PR Close#34683
This adds `insertTStyleValue` but does not hook it up to anything yet.
The purpose of this function is to create a linked-list of styling
related bindings. The bindings can be traversed during flush.
The linked list also keeps track of duplicates. This is important
for binding to know if it needs to check other styles for reconciliation.
PR Close#34004
TNode.inputs are initialised during directives resolution now so we know early
if a node has directives with inputs or no. We don't need to use undefined value
as an indicator that inputs were not resolved yet.
PR Close#33798
Before this change a public name of a directive's input
was stored in 2 places:
- as a key of an object on TNode.index;
- as a value of PropertyAliasValue at the index 1
This PR changes the data structure so the public name is stored
only once as a key on TNode.index. This saves one array entry
for each and every directive input.
PR Close#33798
This patch gets rid of the configuration settings present in the
`TStylingContext` array that is used within the styling algorithm
for `[style]`, `[style.prop]`, `[class]` and `[class.name]` bindings.
These configurations now all live inside of the `TNodeFlags`.
PR Close#33540
Based on the results of the `directive_instantiate` executing host
bindings logic (in creation mode) account for ~23% of time spent in
the directive instantiation, even if a directive doesn't have host
bindings! This is clearly wastful hence a new flag.
PR Close#33102
Since property binding metadata storage is guarded with the ngDevMode now
and several instructions were merged together, we can simplify the way we
store and read property binding metadata.
PR Close#32457
In the previous patch () all the existing styling code was turned
off in favor of using the new refactored ivy styling code. This
patch is a follow up patch to that and removes all old, unused
styling code from the render3 directory.
PR Close#31193
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
Fixes Ivy matching directives against attribute bindings (e.g. `[attr.some-directive]="foo"`). Works by excluding attribute bindings from the attributes array during compilation. This has the added benefit of generating less code.
**Note:** My initial approach to implementing this was to have a different marker for attribute bindings so that they can be ignored when matching directives, however as I was implementing it I realized that the attributes in that array were only used for directive matching (as far as I could tell). I decided to drop the attribute bindings completely, because it results in less generated code.
PR Close#31541
When translated content was projected, all of the content was reappended, even the placeholders that had been removed in the translation.
To avoid that we added a new flag on `TNode` that specifies that a node is detached, in which case it should be ignored by the projection.
FW-1319 #resolve
PR Close#30783
`i18nAttributes` instructions always occur after the element instruction. This means that we need to treat `i18n-` attributes differently.
By defining a specific `AttributeMarker` we can ensure that we won't trigger directive inputs with untranslated attribute values.
FW-1332 #resolve
PR Close#30402
This is the first refactor PR designed to change how styling bindings
(i.e. `[style]` and `[class]`) behave in Ivy. Instead of having a heavy
element-by-element context be generated for each element, this new
refactor aims to use a single context for each `tNode` element that is
examined and iterated over when styling values are to be applied to the
element.
This patch brings this new functionality to prop-based bindings such as
`[style.prop]` and `[class.name]`.
PR Close#30469
Currently in Ivy we pass both the raw and parsed selectors to the projectionDef instruction, because the parsed selectors are used to match most nodes, whereas the raw ones are used to match against nodes with the ngProjectAs attribute. The raw selectors add a fair bit of code that won't be used in most cases, because ngProjectAs is somewhat rare.
These changes rework the compiler not to output the raw selectors in the projectionDef, but to parse the selector in ngProjectAs and to store it on the TAttributes. The logic for matching has also been changed so that it matches the pre-parsed ngProjectAs selector against the list of projection selectors.
PR Close#29578
- Remove an extra type `ViewOrElement`, which even had the same numeric value as `View`.
- Updates comment to remove part about alleged bit-masking that we could be doing here.
We aren't using this with bitmasks, and if we were, everything would be a `NodeType.Container`,
because it's value was `0`.
- Updates the number values to be simple, human-readable integers, since we're not using these
with any kind of bit-manipulation.
- Add comments about each type.
PR Close#29343
The content projection mechanism is static, in that it only looks at the static
template nodes before directives are matched and change detection is run.
When you have a selector-based content projection the selection is based
on nodes that are available in the template.
For example:
```
<ng-content selector="[some-attr]"></ng-content>
```
would match
```
<div some-attr="..."></div>
```
If you have an inline-template in your projected nodes. For example:
```
<div *ngIf="..." some-attr="..."></div>
```
This gets pre-parsed and converted to a canonical form.
For example:
```
<ng-template [ngIf]="...">
<div some-attr=".."></div>
</ng-template>
```
Note that only structural attributes (e.g. `*ngIf`) stay with the `<ng-template>`
node. The other attributes move to the contained element inside the template.
When this happens in ivy, the ng-template content is removed
from the component template function and is compiled into its own
template function. But this means that the information about the
attributes that were on the content are lost and the projection
selection mechanism is unable to match the original
`<div *ngIf="..." some-attr>`.
This commit adds support for this in ivy. Attributes are separated into three
groups (Bindings, Templates and "other"). For inline-templates the Bindings
and "other" types are hoisted back from the contained node to the `template()`
instruction, so that they can be used in content projection matching.
PR Close#29041
This commit adds a new `AttributeMarker` type that will be used, in a
future commit, to mark attributes as coming from an inline-template
expansion, rather than the element that is being contained in the template.
PR Close#29041
Up until now, `[style]` and `[class]` bindings (the map-based ones) have only
worked as template bindings and have not been supported at all inside of host
bindings. This patch ensures that multiple host binding sources (components and
directives) all properly assign style values and merge them correctly in terms
of priority.
Jira: FW-882
PR Close#28246
DebugElement.properties should contain a map of element
property names to element property values, with entries
for both normal property bindings and host bindings.
This commit adds support for property bindings in
DebugElement.properties (including interpolations).
PR Close#28355
Before this commit we were creating a "fake" TNode for each and every
projectable node passed during dynamic component creation. This approach
had several problems:
- the existing TView structure had to be mutated to accomodate new TNodes and
it was very easy to "corrupt" TView / TNode data structures;
- TNodes are not really needed to fully support projectable nodes so we were
creating objects and updating existing data structures for nothing.
This commit changes the approach so we don't create "fake" TNodes for projectable
nodes but instead we process projectable nodes directly in the projection instruction.
As a result we've got less code, less object allocation and - as a bonus - we fix few
bugs where TView / TNode data structures were corrupted when using projectable nodes.
PR Close#28275
