Whenever a top level t-call was made with some non empty body, Owl
complained that a template should not have more than one root node.
The reason was that the compilation context for the body of the t-call
directive was the same as the root compilation context, and it already
had a parentNode set.
To fix the issue, this commit simply use the subContext method to create
a different compilation context, which actually makes sense, because the
body of a t-call is really a different situation. Also, as a bonus, it
slightly improves the code for the t-call directive.
closes#760
Strangely, the _compile method required a CompilationContext whenever it
was compiled as a sub template, but this parent context was actually not
really needed. I guess that it was the case in the past, but this was
changed at some point.
This commit makes another significant change: the xml element is no
longer mandatory. It is actually only required for slots (because the
template is not registered to qweb).
Finally, the interface for the whole method has been changed to use an
option object, which makes more sense with 3 optional paremeters.
Input with type="checkbox" have a special property (indeterminate) to
visually display the fact that the input value is non determinate (in my
chrome browser, the checkbox is then drawn with a simple - inside). It
does not actually modify the value of the input, only the way it is
displayed.
So, with this commit, owl will properly set the property, as expected.
closes#713
This is a rarely (if ever) used feature, but according to our qweb
reference implementation, it is possible to use the
t-call directive on an arbitrary html tag, like this:
<div t-call="my.template"/>
It is then interpreted as:
<div><t t-call="my.template"/></div>
So, with this commit, we make sure that the owl qweb implementation
matches that behaviour.
closes#706
The previous fix (overriding tostring of VDomArray) is actually more
general, and solves the same issue. So, let us simplify the code and
keep the more general solution.
This reverts commit 3bf91afc3f.
Sometimes, HTML is slightly more subtle than what I initially expect.
Rendering some html is simple, we have tags and attributes. However,
once we add behaviour, then the situation is more complex:
<input value="abc"/>
is an input with an INITIAL value of "abc", but the attribute does not
actually represent the CURRENT value of the input, which may be
different if the user did change it.
This is basically the difference between "attribute" and "property".
So, when rendering html with owl, we sometimes want to actually set
the property (current value), instead of the html attribute.
This commit make sure that this is the case for inputs with the "value"
attribute.
closes#722
The body of a t-call directive may be used to define private variables
to the sub template call.
However, the code that handles t-call worked like this:
- compile sub template if necessary
- then compile body of t-call to extract variables
This means that the variables defined in the t-call body were not yet
processed and available in the context. Because of that, when the call
to t-esc is done, there is not internal qweb var, and the code simply
outputs a scope['varname'], which is in our case a VDOMArray, so it is
displayed as [object object]
What this fix does is changing the way t-esc works: if we are in the
context of a sub template, then it assumes that any outside variable may
or may not be a VDomArray, so it needs to check and eventually convert
it to a string, if necessary.
closes#719
Have a t-call nested in a t-foreach nested in a t-foreach
```xml
<t t-name="template">
<t t-foreach="..." t-as="a">
<t t-foreach="..." t-as="b">
<t-call="templateCalled" />
</t>
</t>
</t>
```
Before this commit, the `a` variable was not accessible within the t-call.
That was because the way t-call protected its scope by hiding other protected scope
in this case, the first protected scope for the first `t-foreach` was hidden
After this commit, `a` and `b` are accessible in the t-call, whether the t-call
defines its own variables by `t-set` or not.
Also, as expected from other fixes, there is no leaks of variables defined within a `t-call`
fixes#695
With QWeb, we can register globally templates (using the xml tag or
the registerTemplate function). However, these templates, once
compiled, can generate sub template compiled functions. Before this
commit, these sub functions were local to a specific instance.
This means that creating a new QWeb instance and rendering a global
parent template would crash, since it was unable to find the actual sub
function.
This commit fixes the issue: the sub functions are now shared
statically, but with a unique ID, so we do not have issues with sub
functions having a same name in different QWeb instance.
closes#701
Before this commit, the generated code was incorrect, and crashed,
when there was a t-esc="abc" in a subtemplate, with t-set="abc"
done outside the subtemplate, with syntax <t t-set="abc">value</t>.
There was some code in qweb to make sure that we support setting class
and t-att-class on the same html element:
<div class="some class" t-att-class="{b: true}">...</div>
But the code did not work in the other direction:
<div t-att-class="{b: true}" class="some class">...</div>
With this commit, we just add the missing if statement
closes#664
Have something like
```xml
<div t-name="Parent">
<t t-call="nodeTemplate">
<t t-set="recursive_idx" t-value="1"/>
<t t-set="node" t-value="root"/>
</t>
</div>
<div t-name="nodeTemplate">
<t t-set="recursive_idx" t-value="recursive_idx + 1"/>
<p><t t-esc="node.val"/> <t t-esc="recursive_idx"/></p>
<t t-foreach="node.children or []" t-as="subtree">
<t t-call="nodeTemplate">
<t t-set="node" t-value="subtree"/>
</t>
</t>
</div>
```
Where we want to propagate a recursion index through recursive t-calls
Before this commit, it did not work as we protected the scope in order
to not leak, in the wronf manner. Namely the protected scope only took
firt level prototype properties of the original scope.
After this commit, this case works as we mark the scope as read only
solves #672
In this commit, we uses the "!" as suffix to designate an event that
should be captured. This is inspired by the Vue source code.
This solves the issue of communicating additional information to the
underlying virtual dom. However, this will most likely disappear when
we rewrite the vdom as a virtual block system.
closes#650
Have a t-on within a t-foreach
the t-on has an expression
Before this commit, when triggering the t-on, the expression was falsely evaluated
In details, the expression took scope from outside the foreach loop
as we protect it to have similar results than an actual for loop
But, at triggering time, the scope protection had already been terminated
meaning the info of the iteration of the loop the handler has been built in
had already disappeared
This commit fixes that
closes#594
In a template, have t-set t-value outside a t-foreach
in the t-foreach, alter that variable by resetting it (as for a incrementation variable)
Before this commit, when printing the variable when the loop had finished
its value was the one set in the first place
After this commit, the value becomes the one altered by the loop iterations
closes#598
Before this commit, owl could crash in some specific situations:
multiple t-calls with sub components, outside a loop. The reason is
that the t-call did not generate a key, so from the point of view of the
children component, it had the same key, even though it was at a
different place in a template.
Also, with this fix, we can fix the playground responsive example.
closes#602
The way keys were handled in QWeb was mostly ok, but a little naive. It
is fine when we deal with a list of dom nodes, since the reconciliation
algorithm need only to be able to differentiate/reconcile nodes in that
list, but it is an issue with components, which needs to globally be
able to find themselves in their parent's children map.
Because of the way this was handled, there were situations were Owl
internal virtual dom would crash, since components wrongly assumed that
they were already rendered in a different place.
To fix this, we generalize the way keys are generated, by concatenating
all sub keys coming from each iteration loops.
closes#584
Since t-call is now a function call, we need to properly handle the
internal key used to find previous components. If a t-call is inside a
t-foreach, then we need to transfer the key to the sub template.
Otherwise, each component in the subtemplate will be associated to the
same key, which means that it will lead to big issues: components are
destroyed and reused...
closes#581
Before this commit, when template was t-call'ed and defined
t-component directive within it, there was a crash because extra.parent was never defined
After this commit, this use case works
While it is not tested, nor documented, the reference QWeb
implementation display the `false` value as "false". So, we have to
adapt the Owl implementation to match that behaviour.
At the same time, this commit uses 'let' instead of 'var' in various places,
to make the compiled code more consistant.
Before this commit, the handlers were bound to the current context,
which is often the component but not necessarily. In some cases, a sub
scope can be created (with t-foreach, or slots, or t-call), and the
context is actually an object with the actual component instance it its
prototype chain, but not the component.
This commit is a significant refactoring of the internal of QWeb. It
simplifies the way variables/scoping and slots interact together. The
main idea is that we use a simple scope object instead of a
context/var/scope object.
This commit also implement the actual correct QWeb semantic for the
t-call directive with a sub body. Before, we simply extracted the
variables from the body and injected them at the top of the sub
template. We now simply compile the body before the sub template.
This is a joint work with Lucas (lpe).
closes#541closes#544closes#545closes#557closes#556
Have a t-call having a t-raw="0"
that call is made to a template of the same form
i.e. itself as a t-call t-raw="0" structure
Before this commit, there was recursion crash
This was because the caller to which a t-raw="0" referred to
was incorrect. The caller here is the node which makes the t-call.
In particular, the caller was always set to last caller of the context
After this commit, there is no crash and this imbrication
of t-call and t-raw="0" is well rendered.
To sum up, we count the recursive calls to t-raw="0" and fetch
the caller in the context accordingly
closes#510
Ivan Yelizariev