Closed Bug 273706 Opened 16 years ago Closed 5 years ago

Handle dynamic insertions in repeat subtree

Categories

(Core Graveyard :: XForms, enhancement, P5)

enhancement

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: allan, Unassigned)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

smaug commented on bug 269132:
"How do you handle the case where someone is modifying the subtree of the 
repeat element dynamically? Shouldn't you listen DOMSubtreeModified and
on event call Refresh() or something like that."

He's probably right :)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Blocks: 264329
Attached file Testcase
Testcase.

XTF is not too happy about it:
###!!! ASSERTION: element not implementing nsIContent!?: 'content', file
nsXTFFrameUtils.cpp, line 51
Break: at file nsXTFFrameUtils.cpp, line 51
WARNING: NS_ENSURE_TRUE(aContent) failed, file nsFrameManager.cpp, line 372
Alex, do you have a comment on the assertion message?
(In reply to comment #2)
> Alex, do you have a comment on the assertion message?

Olli had a clue for it. We returned a nsnull insertion point...
Attached patch Rough patchSplinter Review
Here's a rough patch, should work for non-nested repeats, but I have not tested
it much.
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=180795) [edit]
> Rough patch
> 

Does this work also when you modify something, which is not a
child of the repeat element, but further descendant?

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Created an attachment (id=180795) [edit] [edit]
> > Rough patch
> 
> Does this work also when you modify something, which is not a
> child of the repeat element, but further descendant?

Nope. I should possibly have mentioned that *ahem*. So admittedly, it's a sorry
excuse for a fix, but then we're back at the mutation events, aren't we? And
"somebody" keeps telling me to avoid using that for now ... or something :)
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > Created an attachment (id=180795) [edit] [edit] [edit]
> > > Rough patch
> > 
> > Does this work also when you modify something, which is not a
> > child of the repeat element, but further descendant?
> 
> Nope. I should possibly have mentioned that *ahem*. So admittedly, it's a sorry
> excuse for a fix, but then we're back at the mutation events, aren't we? And
> "somebody" keeps telling me to avoid using that for now ... or something :)

I've looked a bit into the mutation events, and they are rather expensive aren't
they? I'm tempted to let us support what I have here, but WONTFIX anything more
than that... what do you say? Dynamics (in general) is not a must....
Blocks: 326372
Blocks: 326373
Severity: normal → enhancement
Priority: -- → P5
No longer blocks: 326372
Assignee: allan → xforms
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
RIP xforms
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.