Skip to content
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

fix(aom): consolidating the aria dom property names #192

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 30, 2018

Conversation

caridy
Copy link
Contributor

@caridy caridy commented Mar 29, 2018

Alignment with spec changes:

w3c/aria#708

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes

It changes a little bit the names of the Aria DOM Properties, and add few missing properties. This only affects folks who are either using any of the 3 changed properties in templates, or are trying to redefine them with get/set. The 3 properties are ariaAutoComplete, ariaMultiLine and ariaReadOnly.

Additionally, 2 deprecated properties were removed: ariaDragged (which had a typo anyway) and ariaDropEffect.

@@ -79,15 +79,13 @@ describe('def', () => {
accessKey: null,
ariaActiveDescendant: null,
ariaAtomic: null,
ariaAutocomplete: null,
ariaAutoComplete: null,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Casing was off!

ariaBusy: null,
ariaChecked: null,
ariaControls: null,
ariaCurrent: null,
ariaDescribedBy: null,
ariaDisabled: null,
ariaDragged: null,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

aria-grabbed, this seems like a typo in the first place.
and aria-dropeffect are deprecated by spec.

@@ -98,12 +96,12 @@ describe('def', () => {
ariaLevel: null,
ariaLive: null,
ariaMultiSelectable: null,
ariaMultiline: null,
ariaMultiLine: null,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Casing was off!

ariaOrientation: null,
ariaOwns: null,
ariaPosInSet: null,
ariaPressed: null,
ariaReadonly: null,
ariaReadOnly: null,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Casing was off!

@@ -113,6 +111,17 @@ describe('def', () => {
ariaValueMin: null,
ariaValueNow: null,
ariaValueText: null,
ariaColCount: null,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

all these were missing.

@caridy
Copy link
Contributor Author

caridy commented Mar 29, 2018

@ekashida does this affects the interop? I suspect that it does since they have a copy of this list.

@salesforce-best-lwc-internal
Copy link

Benchmark comparison

Base commit: 7672429 | Target commit: cecd365

benchmark base(7672429) target(cecd365) trend
table-append-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/append/1k 260.73 (± 7.63 ms) 247.99 (± 2.86 ms) 👍
table-clear-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/clear/1k 13.85 (± 0.48 ms) 11.94 (± 0.31 ms) 👍
table-create-10k.benchmark:benchmark-table/create/10k 1523.56 (± 43.34 ms) 1417.59 (± 8.89 ms) 👍
table-create-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/create/1k 165.81 (± 5.71 ms) 150.64 (± 1.69 ms) 👍
table-update-10th-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/update-10th/1k 134.09 (± 4.04 ms) 123.39 (± 1.91 ms) 👍
tablecmp-append-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/append/1k 331.12 (± 4.17 ms) 324.32 (± 3.12 ms) 👍
tablecmp-clear-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/clear/1k 33.84 (± 2.05 ms) 30.65 (± 0.84 ms) 👍
tablecmp-create-10k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/create/10k 2630.49 (± 77.44 ms) 2500.41 (± 14.59 ms) 👍
tablecmp-create-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/create/1k 285.70 (± 6.46 ms) 264.44 (± 3.56 ms) 👍
tablecmp-update-10th-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/update-10th/1k 120.64 (± 2.92 ms) 115.06 (± 2.54 ms) 👍

@ekashida
Copy link
Member

Created a PR with the updates for interop.

@salesforce-best-lwc-internal
Copy link

Benchmark comparison

Base commit: 7672429 | Target commit: 81d26c1

benchmark base(7672429) target(81d26c1) trend
table-append-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/append/1k 260.73 (± 7.63 ms) 260.71 (± 6.12 ms) 👌
table-clear-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/clear/1k 13.85 (± 0.48 ms) 13.86 (± 0.60 ms) 👌
table-create-10k.benchmark:benchmark-table/create/10k 1523.56 (± 43.34 ms) 1533.03 (± 28.16 ms) 👌
table-create-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/create/1k 165.81 (± 5.71 ms) 160.09 (± 2.69 ms) 👍
table-update-10th-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/update-10th/1k 134.09 (± 4.04 ms) 133.58 (± 3.05 ms) 👌
tablecmp-append-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/append/1k 331.12 (± 4.17 ms) 349.87 (± 7.26 ms) 👎
tablecmp-clear-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table/clear/1k 33.84 (± 2.05 ms) 34.76 (± 1.05 ms) 👎
tablecmp-create-10k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/create/10k 2630.49 (± 77.44 ms) 2680.88 (± 46.51 ms) 👌
tablecmp-create-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/create/1k 285.70 (± 6.46 ms) 294.60 (± 10.83 ms) 👎
tablecmp-update-10th-1k.benchmark:benchmark-table-component/update-10th/1k 120.64 (± 2.92 ms) 122.98 (± 2.92 ms) 👎

@caridy caridy merged commit 13cd8c4 into master Mar 30, 2018
@caridy caridy deleted the caridy/aom-prop-names branch March 30, 2018 14:42
@caridy
Copy link
Contributor Author

caridy commented Mar 30, 2018

@byao @davidturissini @pmdartus we might want to port this into the release branch today.

svc-aura pushed a commit to forcedotcom/aura that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2018
caridy added a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2018
* refactor(engine): avoid rewrapping of proxies

* refactor(engine): prevent leaking double proxies via events or querySelector

fix(aom): consolidating the aria dom property names (#192)

wip: Remove slotting

refactor(engine): conditinally  use of native shadowRoot

fix(engine): compat should also work with artificial shadow

refactor(engine): adding slotting

refactor(engine): adding slotting

refactor(engine): conditionally piercing and default behaviors

refactor(engine): minimizing the polyfilling on shadow-root to only AOM

refactor(engine): implementing Pierre's suggestion to avoid patching shadow root prototype
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants