TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues #2253

hal-gh · 2012-05-23T13:40:23Z

https://jira.appcelerator.org/browse/TIDOC-622
https://jira.appcelerator.org/browse/TIDOC-623

nebrius · 2012-05-24T16:58:43Z

apidoc/Titanium/UI/TableViewSection.yml

 extends: Titanium.UI.View
+excludes: {
+  methods: [ animate ],
+  properties: [ anchorPoint, animatedCenterPoint, backgroundDisabledColor, backgroundDisabledImage, 


Most of these props and the animate method are supported on sections in MW, but is this something we want to communicate in the docs?

Are you able to say which ones should stay in this excludes directive?

Just anchorPoint and animatedCenterPoint, although that's just because MW doesn't support them at all. I guess, technically speaking, they all should stay here and let the documentation for anchorPoint and animatedCenterPoint indicate that MW doesn't support them?

mstepanov · 2012-05-24T23:29:55Z

Looks good from iOS perspective.

pingwang2011 · 2012-05-24T23:34:55Z

apidoc/Titanium/UI/TableViewSection.yml

+                borderRadius, borderWidth, bottom, focusable, height, layout, left, right, rect, 
+                size, top, touchEnabled, transform, visible, width, zIndex
+              ]
+}


Many of these props are not supported in Android.

@pingwang2011 this is excludes section

Sorry, I did not notice this is excludes section. Please ignore my previous comment.

pingwang2011 · 2012-05-25T00:23:38Z

doc reviewed and ran validate.py and docgen.py. passed. Accepted

hal-gh · 2012-05-31T06:21:02Z

Arthur - I need assistance with this. Please would you ping me on IRC?
Thanks

arthurevans · 2012-05-31T07:29:14Z

Since this isn't a view proxy at all on iOS, I don't think we want to encourage people to treat it like one on other platforms unless there's a compelling reason to do so.

So I would lean towards keeping the "excludes" directive as is unless Bryan thinks there's a good case for using these methods/props on MW.

hal-gh · 2012-05-31T08:39:34Z

Bryan, please let me know if there is any other action I need to take in order for this PR to be ready to merge.
Thanks

nebrius · 2012-05-31T16:46:06Z

I still need to re-review it. At a conference right now. Hopefully will get to it tomorrow.

nebrius · 2012-06-01T16:40:50Z

I think we should do one of two things going forward:

Treat this as a view proxy like it is on Android and a view on Mobile Web (we don't have proxies). We would need to file a parity ticket against iOS in this case to make their tableviewsections view proxies.
Change the documentation for tableviewsection to say that it does not inherit from Ti.UI.View. After thinking about it, saying that this control inherits from view but doesn't implement any of it is kinda silly.

I would prefer 1), but I recognize that 2) is much more feasible.

arthurevans · 2012-06-01T19:26:17Z

As near as I can tell (iOS folks, feel free to jump in here), the section isn't even an object on iOS, let alone a view--it's just an integer ID value. You can set a header for section N, set a footer for section N, add a cell to section N--but any data about the section itself appears to be internal to the TableView object.

If that's correct, then yes--2 is probably going to be more feasible.

mstepanov · 2012-06-02T02:32:00Z

@arthurevans you are correct on table sections in iOS

arthurevans · 2012-06-06T17:48:22Z

OK, we're going to change the inheritance form Ti.UI.View to Ti.Proxy.

arthurevans · 2012-06-06T17:48:48Z

Paul, if you're out there, let me know ;-). Otherwise, I'll finish this one off. Thanks.

hal-gh · 2012-06-06T20:40:40Z

Hi Arthur - I was trying to catch you online a few days ago to discuss this, but you weren't around.
I will ping you on IRC about it.
Thanks

…nto hal-gh_TIDOC-623

…e into hal-gh_TIDOC-623

arthurevans · 2012-06-07T18:25:26Z

Updated, please re-review.

Also: I'm a little unsure about the git provenance of pushing to Paul's repo. It seems like there should be more stuff in the "Merge branch master" since paul's PR was 6 days old but, uh... OK, I'm kind of lost in the swervy, curvy logic of git here. If anyone thinks I should cherry-pick these to a clean branch and start a new PR, I can do that instead.

nebrius · 2012-06-07T18:57:26Z

apidoc/Titanium/UI/TableViewSection.yml

+    (that is, an object that inherits from [View](Titanium.UI.View)). However, this is an
+    implementation detail. For portability, you should only use the documented APIs on 
+    table view sections.
+extends: Titanium.Proxy


Mobile Web doesn't have proxies, so this doesn't apply to us.

So, from a doc point of view, all Ti objects inherit from Ti.Proxy, which defines the methods addEventListener and removeEventListener. All Ti types have to inherit from Ti.Proxy as far as the doc system is concerned. I think the MW equivalent is Evented or something like that.

Oh ok, yeah our equivalent is Evented. Why is it called Proxy? That's not very intuitive.

Because the doc format was developed before there was a Mobile Web. And on Android and iOS, all titanium types extend a class called Proxy, which has certain characteristics that set it apart from normal JS objects.

So, FWIW, I find the MobileWeb equivalent not very intuitive ;-).

I see...I don't like it (what does "proxy" have to do with "events", which are the only methods exposed), but if the object doesn't behave like a normal JS object, then I guess it's worth documenting. The documentation for Proxy needs to be updated or created to mention the differences between Mobile Web and the other two platforms.

I didn't want to put more into Paul's pull request, but I've opened a new ticket to supplement the existing doc for Ti.Proxy.
https://jira.appcelerator.org/browse/TIDOC-668

nebrius · 2012-06-09T00:53:22Z

Docs reviewed for Mobile Web. Request accepted.

pingwang2011 · 2012-06-11T20:02:39Z

Doc reviewed for Android. Accepted

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues

1bc239b

nebrius reviewed May 24, 2012
View reviewed changes

pingwang2011 reviewed May 24, 2012
View reviewed changes

Arthur Evans added 3 commits June 7, 2012 10:48

Merge branch 'TIDOC-623' of git://github.com/hal-gh/titanium_mobile i…

379e73a

…nto hal-gh_TIDOC-623

[TIDOC-623][TIDOC-622] Updated inheritance for TableViewSection.

5cca62e

Merge branch 'master' of git://github.com/appcelerator/titanium_mobil…

5848371

…e into hal-gh_TIDOC-623

nebrius reviewed Jun 7, 2012
View reviewed changes

pingwang2011 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2012

Merge pull request #2253 from hal-gh/TIDOC-623

3783942

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues

pingwang2011 merged commit 3783942 into tidev:master Jun 11, 2012

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues #2253

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues #2253

hal-gh commented May 23, 2012

nebrius May 24, 2012

hal-gh May 25, 2012

nebrius May 25, 2012

mstepanov commented May 24, 2012

pingwang2011 May 24, 2012

mstepanov May 24, 2012

pingwang2011 May 25, 2012

pingwang2011 commented May 25, 2012

hal-gh commented May 31, 2012

arthurevans commented May 31, 2012

hal-gh commented May 31, 2012

nebrius commented May 31, 2012

nebrius commented Jun 1, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 1, 2012

mstepanov commented Jun 2, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 6, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 6, 2012

hal-gh commented Jun 6, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 7, 2012

nebrius Jun 7, 2012

arthurevans Jun 7, 2012

nebrius Jun 7, 2012

arthurevans Jun 7, 2012

nebrius Jun 7, 2012

arthurevans Jun 9, 2012

nebrius commented Jun 9, 2012

pingwang2011 commented Jun 11, 2012

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues #2253

TIDOC-623 TIDOC-622 APIDOC: Ti.UI.TableViewSection issues #2253

Conversation

hal-gh commented May 23, 2012

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mstepanov commented May 24, 2012

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pingwang2011 commented May 25, 2012

hal-gh commented May 31, 2012

arthurevans commented May 31, 2012

hal-gh commented May 31, 2012

nebrius commented May 31, 2012

nebrius commented Jun 1, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 1, 2012

mstepanov commented Jun 2, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 6, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 6, 2012

hal-gh commented Jun 6, 2012

arthurevans commented Jun 7, 2012

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nebrius commented Jun 9, 2012

pingwang2011 commented Jun 11, 2012