Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#16504 closed defect (fixed)
SplitContainer: addChild(child, index) behavior changed in trunk
Reported by: | liucougar | Owned by: | bill |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | undecided | Milestone: | 1.9 |
Component: | Dijit | Version: | 1.8.2 |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Blocked By: | Blocking: |
Description (last modified by )
since [29904], splitter.addChild(child, index) behaviour changes:
before [29904], index is based on children widgets in the splitter, while after [29904], the index is taking into account of all children dom nodes, even if they are not widgets.
is this intended going forward?
I think the original behaviour is the more expected one, after all the addChild function is on a widget.
(I think this behaviour change affects all containers)
Change History (7)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
Owner: | changed from bill to liucougar |
---|---|
Status: | new → pending |
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
Status: | pending → new |
---|
i meant SplitterContainer?
from user's point of view, SplitterContainer? does not contains anything other than widgets. the non-widgets dom nodes are internally created by SplitterContainer? (these dom nodes are splitters)
this commit changes the meaning of the index parameter for SplitterContainer?
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by
Oh, you must mean SplitContainer. OK, I did not realize I had broken that, I'll fix it somehow.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by
Milestone: | tbd → 1.9 |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from liucougar to bill |
Status: | new → assigned |
Summary: | splitter.addChild(child, index) behavior change in trunk → SplitContainer: addChild(child, index) behavior changed in trunk |
What do you mean by "splitter"? Is there some issue with BorderContainer?
In any case, addChild()'s behavior was always undefined when there were non-widget children. From the 1.8 API doc for addChild():
The change in behavior was intentional although I didn't think it would break anyone. From the checkin comment: