[ListView] Make LVDS.getSectionLengths() be indexed by section ID #100
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Currently ListViewDataSource.getSectionLengths() returns an array of section lengths, where the nth element of the array is the number of rows in the nth section. There is a tiny bit of an API mismatch since elsewhere section IDs, which are strings, are primarily used. This diff changes getSectionLengths to return an object whose keys are section IDs and values are the number of rows in each respective section.
Before: `[10, 20, 30]`
After: `{firstSection: 10, secondSection: 20, thirdSection: 30}`
|
Scratch this -- I think working with the numeric indices is more appropriate at this level of abstraction. |
react-one
pushed a commit
to react-one/react-native
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2021
javache
added a commit
to javache/react-native
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2024
Summary: In facebook#44188, we've started combining multiple transactions in a single transaction, to meet React's atomicity requirements, while also dealing with the constraints of Android's Fabric implementation. This revealed a bug where in some scenarios (especially when using transitions), a node may be deleted and created during the same transaction. The current implementation of FabricMountingManager assumes it can safely reorder some operations, which it does to optimize the size of IntBufferBatch mount items. This is however incorrect and unsafe when multiple transactions are merged. **Example:** Differentiator output: ``` # Transaction 1 Remove facebook#100 from facebook#11 Delete facebook#100 # Transaction 2 Create facebook#100 Insert facebook#100 into facebook#11 ``` FabricMountingManager output ``` Remove facebook#100 from facebook#11 Insert facebook#100 into facebook#11 Delete facebook#100 ``` Note that the create action is also skipped, because we only update `allocatedViewTags` after processing all mutations, leading FabricMountingManager to assume creation is not required. This leads to an invalid state in SurfaceMountingManager, which will be surfaced as a crash in `getViewState` on the next mutation that interacts with these views. Changelog: [Android][Fixed] Fix crash in getViewState when using suspense fallbacks. Differential Revision: D63148523
javache
added a commit
to javache/react-native
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 26, 2024
…acebook#46702) Summary: In facebook#44188, we've started combining multiple transactions in a single transaction, to meet React's atomicity requirements, while also dealing with the constraints of Android's Fabric implementation. This revealed a bug where in some scenarios (especially when using transitions), a node may be deleted and created during the same transaction. The current implementation of FabricMountingManager assumes it can safely reorder some operations, which it does to optimize the size of IntBufferBatch mount items. This is however incorrect and unsafe when multiple transactions are merged. **Example:** Differentiator output: ``` # Transaction 1 Remove facebook#100 from facebook#11 Delete facebook#100 # Transaction 2 Create facebook#100 Insert facebook#100 into facebook#11 ``` FabricMountingManager output ``` Remove facebook#100 from facebook#11 Insert facebook#100 into facebook#11 Delete facebook#100 ``` Note that the create action is also skipped, because we only update `allocatedViewTags` after processing all mutations, leading FabricMountingManager to assume creation is not required. This leads to an invalid state in SurfaceMountingManager, which will be surfaced as a crash in `getViewState` on the next mutation that interacts with these views. Changelog: [Android][Fixed] Fix crash in getViewState when using suspense fallbacks. Differential Revision: D63148523
javache
added a commit
to javache/react-native
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2024
…acebook#46702) Summary: Pull Request resolved: facebook#46702 In facebook#44188, we've started combining multiple transactions in a single transaction, to meet React's atomicity requirements, while also dealing with the constraints of Android's Fabric implementation. This revealed a bug where in some scenarios (especially when using transitions), a node may be deleted and created during the same transaction. The current implementation of FabricMountingManager assumes it can safely reorder some operations, which it does to optimize the size of IntBufferBatch mount items. This is however incorrect and unsafe when multiple transactions are merged. **Example:** Differentiator output: ``` # Transaction 1 Remove facebook#100 from facebook#11 Delete facebook#100 # Transaction 2 Create facebook#100 Insert facebook#100 into facebook#11 ``` FabricMountingManager output ``` Remove facebook#100 from facebook#11 Insert facebook#100 into facebook#11 Delete facebook#100 ``` Note that the create action is also skipped, because we only update `allocatedViewTags` after processing all mutations, leading FabricMountingManager to assume creation is not required. This leads to an invalid state in SurfaceMountingManager, which will be surfaced as a crash in `getViewState` on the next mutation that interacts with these views. Changelog: [Android][Fixed] Fix crash in getViewState when using suspense fallbacks. Reviewed By: sammy-SC Differential Revision: D63148523
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2024
…46702) Summary: Pull Request resolved: #46702 In #44188, we've started combining multiple transactions in a single transaction, to meet React's atomicity requirements, while also dealing with the constraints of Android's Fabric implementation. This revealed a bug where in some scenarios (especially when using transitions), a node may be deleted and created during the same transaction. The current implementation of FabricMountingManager assumes it can safely reorder some operations, which it does to optimize the size of IntBufferBatch mount items. This is however incorrect and unsafe when multiple transactions are merged. **Example:** Differentiator output: ``` # Transaction 1 Remove #100 from #11 Delete #100 # Transaction 2 Create #100 Insert #100 into #11 ``` FabricMountingManager output ``` Remove #100 from #11 Insert #100 into #11 Delete #100 ``` Note that the create action is also skipped, because we only update `allocatedViewTags` after processing all mutations, leading FabricMountingManager to assume creation is not required. This leads to an invalid state in SurfaceMountingManager, which will be surfaced as a crash in `getViewState` on the next mutation that interacts with these views. Changelog: [Android][Fixed] Fix crash in getViewState when using suspense fallbacks. Reviewed By: sammy-SC Differential Revision: D63148523 fbshipit-source-id: 07ae26b2f7b7eba1b9784041dd3059b0956c035e
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently ListViewDataSource.getSectionLengths() returns an array of section lengths, where the nth element of the array is the number of rows in the nth section. There is a tiny bit of an API mismatch since elsewhere section IDs, which are strings, are primarily used. This diff changes getSectionLengths to return an object whose keys are section IDs and values are the number of rows in each respective section.
Before:
[10, 20, 30]After:
{firstSection: 10, secondSection: 20, thirdSection: 30}