Summary:
This is a refactor of the toolbar in the contenteditable. Goals of this
are:
1. Allow developers to add new buttons to the toolbar
2. Allow developers to add other component types to the floating toolbar (like the LinkEditor)
3. Make the toolbar declaratively defined instead of imperatively set
4. Separate out logical units of the toolbar into individual sections
5. Clean up `innerState` of the Contenteditable
The Floating Toolbar used to be an imperative mess. Doing simple
functionality additions required re-understanding a very complex set of
logic to hide and show the toolbar and delecately manage focus states.
There also was no real capacity for any developer to extend the toolbar.
It also used to be completely outside of our `atomicEdit` system and was a
legacy of having raw access to contenteditable controls (since it all used
to be directly inside of the contenteditable)
Finally it was difficult to declaratively define things because the
`innerState` of the Contenteditable was inconsistently used and its
lifecycle not properly thought through. This fixed several lifecycle bugs
with that.
Along the way several of the DOMUtils methods were also subtly not
functional and fixed.
The Toolbar is now broken apart into separate logical units.
There are now `ContentedtiableExtension`s that declare what should be
displayed in the toolbar at any given moment.
They define a method called `toolbarComponentData`. This is a pure
function of the state of the `Contenteditable`. If selection and content
conditions look correct, then that method will return a component to
render. This is how we declaratively define whether a toolbar should be
visible or not instead of manually setting `hide` & `show` bits.
There is also a `toolbarButtons` method that declaratively defines buttons
that can go in the new `<ToolbarButtons>` component.
The `ToolbarButtonManager` takes care of extracting these and binding the
correct editorAPI context.
Now the `<LinkEditor>` is a separate component from the `<ToolbarButtons>`
instead of being smashed together.
The `LinkManager` takes care of declaring when the `LinkEditor` should be
displayed and has properly bound methods to update the `contenteditable`
through the standard `atomicEdit` interface.
If users have additional contenteditable popup plugins (like displaying
extra info on a name or some content in the composer), they can now
implement the `toolbarComponentData` api and declaratively define that
information based on the state of the contenteditable.
Test Plan: TODO
Reviewers: bengotow, juan
Reviewed By: bengotow
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2442
Summary:
1. **Generic CUD Tasks**: There is now a generic `CreateModelTask`,
`UpdateModelTask`, and `DestroyModelTask`. These can either be used as-is
or trivially overridden to easily update simple objects. Hopefully all of
the boilerplate rollback, error handling, and undo logic won't have to be
re-duplicated on every task. There are also tests for these tasks. We use
them to perform mutating actions on `Metadata` objects.
1. **Failing on Promise Rejects**: Turns out that if a Promise rejected
due to an error or `Promise.reject` we were ignoring it and letting tests
pass. Now, tests will Fail if any unhandled promise rejects. This
uncovered a variety of errors throughout the test suite that had to be
fixed. The most significant one was during the `theme-manager` tests when
all packages (and their stores with async DB requests) was loaded. Long
after the `theme-manager` specs finished, those DB requests were
(somtimes) silently failing.
1. **Globally stub `DatabaseStore._query`**: All tests shouldn't actually
make queries on the database. Furthremore, the `inTransaction` block
doesn't resolve at all unless `_query` is stubbed. Instead of manually
remembering to do this in every test that touches the DB, it's now mocked
in `spec_helper`. This broke a handful of tests that needed to be manually
fixed.
1. **ESLint Fixes**: Some minor fixes to the linter config to prevent
yelling about minor ES6 things and ensuring we have the correct parser.
Test Plan: new tests
Reviewers: bengotow, juan, drew
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2419
Remove cloudState and N1-Send-Later
Summary:
This diff bundles a number of small usability fixes to the "Create account" window. It notably:
- forces users to enter required fields before moving on to the next step
- validates email addresses and domain names
Test Plan: Tested manually by going through all the possible auth flows.
Reviewers: evan, juan, bengotow
Reviewed By: bengotow
Subscribers: bengotow
Projects: #edgehill
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2377
Fixes behavior when there are no template files, prevents renaming/creating
with an empty name, fixes yet another way to accidentally make yellow text,
misc small style fixes
clicking outside:
- When focusing the composer via click inside the contenteditable region or via
tabbing, last text node before the signature (or blockquotes) will be focused.
- When focusing composer by clicking outside contenteditable region, it
will default to default contenteditable focus behavior via new method:
`nativeFocus`
Summary: When focusing the composer, select the end of the last text block above any signatures / quoted text (which can be visible by default in Fwd:).
Test Plan: Run tests
Reviewers: juan, evan
Reviewed By: evan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2411
Summary:
Remove FocusTrackingRegion—all CommandRegions should be focusable, and nesting the two creates varying behavior based on which is the parent
Calling focus() on an injected / unsafe component should always do /something/. Try the inner React method, inner DOM method, or call on ourselves
Rename contentEditable._focusEditor to "focus" since it intends to replace default focus behavior
In ComposerView, always change focus via setState, never by calling focus() directly. Rather than tracking `_lastFocusedField`, just focus whenever the activeElement isnt within the focusedField. Make body initial focus when draft is pristine...
...(ensures new drafts are focused)
Test Plan: Run tests
Reviewers: evan, juan
Reviewed By: evan, juan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2406
