Skip to content

Conversation

SilverFire
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

AlexHill and others added 30 commits March 9, 2015 15:17
Use pageYOffset over scrollY for IE9+ support
documented `false` as a allowed `scrollTo` value
When different pjax containers were used for pjax navigations, the popstate restoring mechanism would get confused as to in which container to restore some particular HTML. I tried to remedy this by reading the target container from `previousState` on "back" navigations, however this was subject to at least a couple of flaws: 1. It would break if `previousState` was done via replaceState, which replaces content in a container but doesn't add a history entry. 2. It doesn't handle the case where user jumps several steps of history stack (e.g. by holding the "Back" button pressed and choosing from the drop down menu). A more solid solution to knowing where to restore particular cached HTML is to save the information about the container that the HTML was saved from in the first place. This adds the container selector information to the cache, forming a pair with cached contents for each history entry.
Change internal cache struct to fix restoring mixed containers
on options.beforeSend check if there is a hash to prevent the extra # on URLs without hash
Instead of checking `location.hash == ""`, instead check that `#` isn't ocurring in `.href` property at all.
By parsing the URL beforehand, ensure that we never do a replacement in a component other than `url.search`.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems that this fixes #15

.travis.yml Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm... what is it for?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess that should not be in our fork...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, we can drop it

SilverFire added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2015
@SilverFire SilverFire merged commit c1f83da into master Nov 25, 2015
@SilverFire SilverFire added this to the 2.0.6 milestone Nov 25, 2015
@SilverFire SilverFire self-assigned this Nov 25, 2015
@SilverFire
Copy link
Member Author

Merged.

@samdark samdark deleted the update-from-upstream branch November 25, 2015 18:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
9 participants