Side navigation
#2278 closed bug ()
Opened February 04, 2008 07:04AM UTC
Closed November 11, 2010 11:09PM UTC
animate calculates the wrong height of element with implicit width
Reported by: | andreasc | Owned by: | andreasc |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | low | Milestone: | 1.5 |
Component: | effects | Version: | 1.2.2 |
Keywords: | animate height | Cc: | |
Blocked by: | Blocking: |
Description
Full description: http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_thread/thread/f46d8dddfdf5eefc
Short description:
When animating, for example sliding down an element (foo) inside an container (bar) with an explicit width, jquery doesnt take the width in to account when calculating the height of foo when its hidden. This could lead to jquery calculating the wrong height of foo if the width of bar makes text in foo linebreak like in the example in the full description url. It might sound vague but looking at the url above and the screenshots makes it a little more clear.
Suggested solution: When the position:absolute and visibillity: hidden is applied to the hidden element to determine its height an explicit width should be added calculated from its implicit width, once the correct height is determined, the explicit width can be removed.
As mentioned on the dev mailinglist Im not aware or sure about what kind of sideeffects a change like this could lead to, so i guess someone with good insight should say something about this first.
Attachments (0)
Change History (4)
Changed February 17, 2008 06:34PM UTC by comment:1
component: | core → fx |
---|
Changed August 11, 2010 11:51PM UTC by comment:2
Hmmm, I think I have encountered this and didn't realize what caused it.
From the linked post:
But what jquery forgets is that if the container of the element to animate has an explicit width it has to take that width into account. Or else this line breaks will not be taken in to account.
...
an explicit width should be added calculated from its implicit width
Right, but the implicit width would be based on the width of the parent. If the parent is also hidden, then this same process would need to be repeated up the tree until we reach an element that isn't hidden. This seems like it's going to be a mess...
Changed October 25, 2010 06:59AM UTC by comment:3
milestone: | 1.2.3 → 1.5 |
---|---|
owner: | → andreasc |
priority: | major → low |
status: | new → pending |
Can we get any confirmation that this still exists as a bug, and perhaps a reduced test case? Thanks!
Changed November 11, 2010 11:09PM UTC by comment:4
status: | pending → closed |
---|
Automatically closed due to 14 days of inactivity.