273706 - Handle dynamic insertions in repeat subtree

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Core Graveyard :: XForms, enhancement, P5)

Description

[Allan Beaufour]

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 :)

Comment 1

[Allan Beaufour]

Attachment: 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

Comment 2

[Allan Beaufour]

Alex, do you have a comment on the assertion message?

Comment 3

[Allan Beaufour]

(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...

Comment 4

[Allan Beaufour]

Attachment: Rough patch

Here's a rough patch, should work for non-nested repeats, but I have not tested
it much.

Comment 5

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]](vacation until Nov 16)]

(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?

Comment 6

[Allan Beaufour]

(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 :)

Comment 7

[Allan Beaufour]

(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....

Comment 8

[David Bolter [:davidb] (NeedInfo me for attention)]

RIP xforms