1522446 - GeckoView: Pull to refresh

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(GeckoView :: General, enhancement, P1)

Description

[Sebastian Kaspari (:sebastian; :pocmo)]

Fenix: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/103
Android Components: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components/issues/1824

There's an desire to support the pull-to-refresh gesture for quick page reloads.

A) Is this something the Gecko(View) team would implement internally? It may be easier for Gecko(View) to synchronize the gesture with the page scrolling.

B) Is this something we should implement at the Android level via nested scrolling? This may need some hooks for us to know more about the scrolling state, see bug 1507569

Comment 1

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

Eugen, do you think pull-to-refresh (gesture handling and page reloading) is best handled in GV or the app (or an Android-Component)? Are your instructions for implementing pull-to-refresh in bug 1162150 comment 36 still accurate?

Comment 2

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

[geckoview:fenix:p1] because https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components/issues/1819 says pull-to-refresh is a must-have for Fenix MVP.

Comment 3

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

A-C issue asking for pull-to-refresh:
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/reference-browser/issues/304

Comment 4

[Eugen Sawin [:esawin]]

(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #1)

Eugen, do you think pull-to-refresh (gesture handling and page reloading) is best handled in GV or the app (or an Android-Component)? Are your instructions for implementing pull-to-refresh in bug 1162150 comment 36 still accurate?

We provide the ScrollDelegate to broadcast updates on the horizontal and vertical content scroll positions.
I was able to implement pull-to-refresh in GVE using this API and SwipeRefreshLayout, which was the recommended way of doing it at this time.

I don't know whether that's a feasible way to implement it in a more complex app, and would like to hear some input on that from the Android devs. We might need to extend the current API if that's not the case.

Generally speaking, I think this should be an app-level (or a-c) implementation based on GV's generic APIs.

Comment 5

[Sebastian Kaspari (:sebastian; :pocmo)]

Thank you! That sounds good and should be enough to get us started.

Comment 6

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

(In reply to Eugen Sawin [:esawin] from comment #4)

Generally speaking, I think this should be an app-level (or a-c) implementation based on GV's generic APIs.

In that case, I will close this GV bug.