New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
✨Support different animation styles in amp-lightbox
#16813
Conversation
@@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ tags: { # <amp-lightbox> | |||
attrs: { name: "controls" } | |||
attrs: { name: "from" } | |||
attrs: { name: "scrollable" } | |||
attrs: { | |||
name: "animate-in" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
please alphabetize
also, repeated fields for value and value_casei is not on github yet, but we'll try to get it there today.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alphabetized.
Waiting for repeated value_casei
support to make it into the repo and then will merge.
st.resetStyles(element, ['display']); | ||
|
||
this.mutateElement(() => { | ||
element./*OK*/scrollTop = 0; | ||
}); | ||
|
||
this.handleAutofocus_(); | ||
|
||
// TODO (jridgewell): expose an API accomodating this per PR #14676 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we want to use the dirtyElement
method here per #14917, right @jridgewell ?
st.setStyles(this.element, { | ||
display: '', | ||
opacity: 0, | ||
st.setStyles(element, dict({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Per discussion, this shouldn't interfere with anything users could possibly do unless they are styling the transform property themselves. In that case, we need to gracefully bail / emit error message / not do anything, and document any relevant caveats.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Documented.
Actually, can you also verify that the manual test referenced in #14676 still works with the |
Manual test working just fine :) |
LGTM |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #16813 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.09% 78.03% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 558 558
Lines 40437 40438 +1
==========================================
- Hits 31578 31554 -24
- Misses 8859 8884 +25
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Updated after validator rollup and added validation tests. PTAL. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
validation changes look good
This reverts commit afd61bf.
@alanorozco thanks for taking this over FixIt week! Could you create a demo when it makes it to prod and sent it to the team for a look and feedback? |
Fixes #2374.