OK, thanks. Alex some alternative layouts I can try. —peter On 5/30/17, 11:35 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The reasons it’s broken is (at least) thee-fold: > >1. Panels contain content and need to be collapsed despite the fact that >content exists. >2. The Collapse bead can only infer that it’s collapsed by the fact that >the size is the collapsed size — which only makes sense if the size is >set. >3. The title must be measured to set the collapsed height correctly. > >> On May 30, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Something like this: >> >> <js:Accordion selectedIndex="0"> >> <js:dataProvider> >> <fx:Array> >> <js:Panel id="panel1" title="Panel 1"/> >> <js:Panel id="panl2" title="Panel 2"/> >> </fx:Array> >> </js:dataProvider> >> </js:Accordion> >> >> This is the markup of an Accordion which used to work, which doesn’t >>anymore. >> >> <js:Accordion id="accordion" width="100%" height="100%"> >> <js:dataProvider> >> <fx:Array> >> <view:SetupPanel/> >> <view:PackagePanel/> >> <view:TemplatePanel/> >> <view:FontPanel/> >> </fx:Array> >> </js:dataProvider> >> </js:Accordion> >> >> >>> On May 30, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Do you have a quick example of how to use the FlexJS Accordion? The >>>ASDoc >>> on it is thin. The children of the Flex SDK Accordion were navigation >>> components that supported things like title so each section could be >>> labeled. I don't see an AccordionChild or something similar that can be >>> used with Accordion. I took a guess and made Container a child of it, >>>but >>> it just blew up. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ‹peter >>> >>> On 5/30/17, 6:39 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It seems like the new layouts totally broke Accordion. >>>> >>>> Accordion relied on absolute sizing to handle expanding and >>>>collapsing of >>>> content. I tried to add a new layout which is basically a copy of the >>>>old >>>> OneFlexibleVerticalLayout and use that for accordion, but that does >>>>not >>>> seem to work either due to changes in containers (I think). >>>> >>>> Peter, do you thin you could look into this? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Harbs >>> >> >
