-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
Add possibility to remove ValueProvider #2474
Changes from 1 commit
e33fdb5
fed12ef
fcd4fca
b55cedb
2e4503c
7cee759
cd0f3db
03c9113
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -241,6 +241,17 @@ final class MainThreadAnimationLayer: CALayer, RootAnimationLayer { | |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
func removeValueProvider(keypath: AnimationKeypath) { | ||
for layer in animationLayers { | ||
if let foundProperties = layer.nodeProperties(for: keypath) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Like I mentioned in #2474 (comment), I think this behavior is different than the behavior implemented for the Core Animation rendering engine in
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't have a strong preference on which approach is better (removing all matches, or just removing exact matches) but I think the behavior of the Core Animation engine and Main Thread engine needs to be the same. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I have a feeling updating the behavior of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks, @calda, for your assistance! |
||
for property in foundProperties { | ||
property.removeProvider() | ||
} | ||
layer.displayWithFrame(frame: presentation()?.currentFrame ?? currentFrame, forceUpdates: true) | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
func getValue(for keypath: AnimationKeypath, atFrame: CGFloat?) -> Any? { | ||
for layer in animationLayers { | ||
if | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -854,6 +854,13 @@ public class LottieAnimationLayer: CALayer { | |||||
animationLayer.setValueProvider(valueProvider, keypath: keypath) | ||||||
} | ||||||
|
||||||
public func removeValueProvider(keypath: AnimationKeypath) { | ||||||
guard let animationLayer = rootAnimationLayer else { return } | ||||||
|
||||||
valueProviders[keypath] = nil | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I guess we should also do something like this here:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The |
||||||
animationLayer.removeValueProvider(keypath: keypath) | ||||||
} | ||||||
|
||||||
/// Reads the value of a property specified by the Keypath. | ||||||
/// Returns nil if no property is found. | ||||||
/// | ||||||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -673,6 +673,12 @@ open class LottieAnimationView: LottieAnimationViewBase { | |||||
lottieAnimationLayer.setValueProvider(valueProvider, keypath: keypath) | ||||||
} | ||||||
|
||||||
/// Sets a ValueProvider for the specified keypath. The value provider will be removed | ||||||
/// on all properties that match the keypath. | ||||||
public func removeValueProvider(keypath: AnimationKeypath) { | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. A better name for this would probably be:
Suggested change
|
||||||
lottieAnimationLayer.removeValueProvider(keypath: keypath) | ||||||
} | ||||||
|
||||||
/// Reads the value of a property specified by the Keypath. | ||||||
/// Returns nil if no property is found. | ||||||
/// | ||||||
|
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.
What about if the given
keypath
is something likeLayer.*
? Should it remove key paths likeLayer.Color
? It seems like that probably wouldn't happen with the current implementation using==
.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.
Could you please add a test case for this to
ValueProvidersTests.swift
, with some cases like that where the the key path being removed isn't directly present in the list of providers and instead matches using wildcards?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.
Is that behavior really expected? The method is named
removeValueProvider
, which suggests that it should only remove the exact value provider for the specified keyPath, and not multipleValueProviders
.Another point - in
setValueProvider
the value providers are removed the same way as is implemented in this method (see here - https://github.com/airbnb/lottie-ios/blob/master/Sources/Private/CoreAnimation/ValueProviderStore.swift#L39). If you anyway would like to have functionality for wildcard case (likeLayer.*
) - I'm not sure how exactly it should work, so help would be wanted.I added test for the current
removeValueProvider
implementation.Thank you
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.
Good question, I can see it making sense for the behavior to stay as-is in the Core Animation rendering engine.
However, I'm pretty sure that this behavior that I describe is the current behavior implemented in this PR for the Main Thread rendering engine. We should make sure the two implementations are consistent.