1) You should check both Lighthouse and Trac., though Lighthouse is where all the new tracking happens.
2) I don't remember what stopped us from applying this enhancement. I personally find it useful, but there are performance implications as always. The patch also goes in hand with modified #recursivelyCollect method (see one of the messages in that thread). Modified #getDimensions was actually faster with modified #recursivelyCollect (since it avoids double enumeration by filtering through iterator in one loop). Having said that, it might actually make sense to add this in 1.6.1 version (1.6.0.3 release is "bug-fixes only") - kangax On Jun 20, 11:02 am, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, kangax! > > Do you know... which is the "proper" place to look for things like > this (patches, enhancements, etc.)? On the Rails Trac, or the > Prototype Lighthouse? or somewhere else? or are these being merged? > > Also, looking at that patch, I realize that I didn't take into account > that the element I'm getting the dimensions of may not have its own > dimensions set. Oops. :) > > One more, then I'll be on my merry way... What could I do to help get > this enhancement implemented? > > Thanks again, > Lance > > On Jun 19, 6:48 pm, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yep, that's an old bummer : )http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/11142 > > > - kangax > > > On Jun 19, 5:35 pm, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Prototype v1.6.0.2 > > > > If any of an element's ancestors are hidden, Element.getDimensions() > > > returns misleading values. In order to address this in my own project, > > > I made the following modification: > > > > getDimensions: function(element) { > > > element = $(element); > > > var display = element.getStyle('display'); > > > + var hiddenAncestor = element.ancestors().any(function(e) > > > { return e.getStyle('display') == 'none'; }); > > > - if (display != 'none' && display != null) // Safari bug > > > + if (display != 'none' && display != null && !hiddenAncestor) // > > > Safari bug > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > > but I imagine there is a more efficient way of doing this. I wanted to > > > bring this to the community's attention, see if anyone agrees with me > > > that this check should be added, and find out if someone with more > > > skillz than I could provide a better solution. > > > > Thanks! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
