SWC-7102, SWC-7131 - Fixes for ReactComponent widgets #5551
Conversation
| @@ -14,8 +14,6 @@ public interface SynapseJSNIUtils { | |||
|
|
|||
| public void highlightCodeBlocks(); | |||
|
|
|||
| void loadSummaryDetailsShim(); | |||
| public void render(ReactElement<?, ?> reactElement) { | ||
| this.reactElement = reactElement; | ||
| createRootAndRender(); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a bit of refactoring to unify the calls to Timer.run/Timer.schedule (setTimeout) and make it more clear why it's being scheduled. No logical change
| if (root != null) { | ||
| root.render(React.createElement(React.Fragment)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
onUnload was inappropriate here. This widget can only contain a React component tree (no widget children), so it's much safer to just render a fragment. This prevents bugs where the root was unmounted and destroyed when it didn't need to be.
| @@ -92,11 +92,40 @@ private void createRoot() { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /** | |||
| * Asynchronously (in the task queue, via setTimeout) unmounts the root and sets it to null. | |||
| */ | |||
| private void destroyRoot() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just as in ReactComponent (v1), move the asynchronous logic inside of destroyRoot
| if (shouldDestroyRoot) { | ||
| destroyRoot(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Create a fresh ReactElement tree and render it | ||
| componentToRender.createRoot(); | ||
| componentToRender.root.render(componentToRender.createReactElement()); | ||
| } | ||
| }; | ||
| t.schedule(0); | ||
| // Schedule rendering | ||
| createRootAndRender(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that even through the timers were changed so destroyRoot and createRootAndRender now trigger two timers, they end up on the same queue, so they will execute in order.
…ll extended classes)
| @@ -216,20 +234,10 @@ protected void onLoad() { | |||
|
|
|||
| @Override | |||
| protected void onUnload() { | |||
| super.onUnload(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The super method is an empty implementation, so this call is not necessary
nickgros
changed the title
No description provided.