I've coded two small jQuery based scripts, one of accordions, and one of tabs, but then i realized that they were the same : get the clicked tab's index among other tabs, and only show the content that has the same index among contents.
But there's one annoying difference between the two : the animation. While tabs are only using the display property, accordions need to animate the height of content blocks.
Problem is that it is not possible to animate from height: 0; to height: auto;. There is a way to do it differently, using max-height, as described in [this] other SO question, but i don't really like this solution because it's hard-coded and doesn't always work.
Is there a way to animate a block's height from 0 to it's content height without using max-height or javascript ?
Thanks for your help !
No. CSS transitions can only go from a value (or no value indicating a zero value) to another value. They cannot go from a value (or zero value) to a non-zero undetermined value.
Related
I've taken a version of the code posted on Aurelia JS - iterate through children (kendo UI) elements? and modified it slightly, here:
https://gist.run/?id=323de53223d2ec872f17361378639556
I would basically like to express that the vertical sliders should be 90% of the height of the enclosing div; note that:
If there is no CSS height: specification, the sliders get some height, and that is it
If I set the CSS height (either via div.eqSlider in basic-use.css, or as an inline style attribute) in either px or em, then all is fine
But, if I set the CSS height in percent % (either via div.eqSlider in basic-use.css, or as an inline style attribute), or to calc(90%-10px) or similar - then the display is completely messed up, as shown on the image below:
So, is it somehow possible to set the height of these sliders to 90% of the height of the enclosing div - and if so, how?
Ok, I think I fixed it - the problem was as is typical in these cases: by default, divs and such don't have a height defined, and their height gets computed based on their contents. Since the sliders in the example are the content, without any other further specification, their height in procent then either becomes recursive, or is percentage of height 0.
Which is why then one must ensure that the entire chain from body to the enclosing div have a height defined in % (in essence, 100%, except it may show scrollbar). And I thought I had done that in the previous example - but I made a mistake in the .css: I used a .example selector (for a class), whereas I should have used #example selector (for an id); and that broke the height calculation of the chain of nested divs.
I noticed that once I assigned borders to each and every div in the nested chain; and then could correct so they all have defined height. Once all of the divs - and thus the enclosing one - have a height, then the sliders can get a height in percent, either in the .css file, or by assignment from JavaScript (via slider.wrapper.css("height", "50%");)
And so, the corrected code is now on:
https://gist.run/?id=fcfc066733ad903fa0575388a1637e4f
... and the output looks as expected:
I am currently trying to position an element in a way that it always is at the bottom of it's parent. What's special here is that none of the heights or widths are known. I'd like to do this without tables, if at all possible (my superior is against using those. In a very religious way).
I tried the approach of using position:relative on the parent and position:absolute; bottom:0; on the box I want to have at the bottom. This, however, causes the box to overlap with the other content of the parent div since absolute positioning causes the parent to ignore the height of the positioned element. Some JavaScript is used to align the heights of the floating divs to each other. But disabled JavaScript should not completely break the layout (as in: cause content to overlap or break the "flow" of the page).
Here's the fiddle with the exact structure of my markup: http://jsfiddle.net/vbeC2/27/
I did read the "float: bottom" question on SO, but none of the answers really adressed my problem, hence the new question.
It's not the cleanest solution, but since you were already using the maxHeight bit to calculate the sizes, I just added a second each loop to check the max-height of the bottom section, and added it, so that the relative, absolute positioning would work.
http://jsfiddle.net/robsterlini/svcGB/ or http://codepen.io/robsterlini/pen/BcDyt
EDIT When you resize your browser it won't work, but you could just add a resize event that recalculated it, and you'd need to think about creating some javascript-less fallbacks, either using modernizr, or just some simple
Please find the working demo here: JS Enabled
Modified the jquery logic to calculate the height of the maximum height of the container as shown below:
$(document).ready(function(){
//Set the height of the columns to the highest value of all columns
var maxHeight = 0;
$(".same-height").each(function(){
var k = $(this).children('.headline').innerHeight() + $(this).children('.description').innerHeight()+$(this).children('.bottom').innerHeight();
maxHeight = Math.max(maxHeight,k);
});
$(".same-height").css({"height" : maxHeight});
});
If JavaScript is disabled then you should apply different styles as shown in demo here:
JS Disabled
Here is something similar to what you want to atchive but the demo is centering the
http://css-tricks.com/centering-in-the-unknown/
You should use the same trick : using css ::after/::before pseudo classes to set your footer content in your parent div
I am using kendoSplitter to create a page layout with 2 panes.
Setting the first pane size as "100px" and the remaining space for 2nd pane.
Set the padding for the panes as "5px" and set the box-sizing as "border-box".
So,expected the width of pane1 including padding is "100px"
But on page load, it applied padding on top of 100px,making the width as 110px and leading to scrollbar.
$('#splitter').kendoSplitter({
panes:[
{collapsible:true,size:'100px'},
{collapsible:true,resizable:true}
]
});
jsFiddler for this case:
http://jsfiddle.net/nagakiran/xmTJF/
But if I apply the padding after initializing kendoSplitter,it works as in this fiddler.
http://jsfiddle.net/nagakiran/hPVWf/1/
Looks it's a bug in kendoUI or am I missing something?
I don't think it is a bug. Maybe an undocumented feature or a side-effect. It seems that is a question about the order on how things are executed.
Remember that you HTML is "decorated" by KendoUI widgets so what you have defined as splitter1 is not just your div but more things (the decoration).
When you style it after invoking kendoSplitter you are actually re-decorating the result of KendoUI decoration. Since kendoSplitter sets the width of your pane to a fixed width, the padding does not add extra space.
But when you use the CSS, it runs simultaneously to kendoSplitter and when it asks for the size, it gets the wrong size.
Should KendoUI be smarter? Maybe but it's actually pretty hard guessing what CSS are going to do and apply a counter action before the CSS.
Fixed it by adding a flag in kendoSplitter which modifies the way width is assigned to splitter panes. If this flag is set,it will reduce the width that's assigned to each pane by the "padding-left+padding-right" specified for that pane.
After that found a simple solution of creating wrapper div inside each splitter-pane and set "box-sizing:border-box" and "padding:10px", which worked without issues.
Kendo has issues with box-sizing: borderbox. This post may help.
I asked a question yesterday on here and got some awsome help, but I need more help concerning more or less the same, only a bit different.
This is my old thread.
So ye, I made this and the idea is that you can customize the table to see it the way you want. for now its possible to drag the columns to change the order and its possible to order the columns on alphabet or high/low. Since I got help here, its now also possible to hide the columns.
Now I want to make the hiding process a bit more smooth, since its hard to see if something is hidden after a click if you use no animation. I use .fadeOut(200); now, but when the fading is done the column just 'jumps' to fill the gap, is it possible to animate this in some sort?
Edit: After thinking some more, I thought that I could just loop a -1px width untill the element's width is 1px and then just hide it, but for some reason that wont work, the table doesnt respond to .width(xxx); or .css('width', 'xxx');. It does change the value, but the td keeps the same width.
This is somewhat of a workaround, and there might be a better solution, but here it is anyway:
Animate the opacity to 0.0. Fadeout does the same, but it also sets display:none after completely fading out. It is the display:none that causes the adjacent column to jump and fill in the gap.
Animating will cause your hidden div to remain there. Now that it is no longer visible, animate its width to 0. This will cause the adjacent div to smoothly take over its place.
Once width is 0, set display:none
Here's a working sample I whipped up. Adjust accordingly to animate width: http://jsfiddle.net/x7BEv/8/
Here's how the magic happens:
$(document).ready(function(){
$('#button').click(function(){
$('#upper').animate({opacity:0.0},'slow').animate({height:'0px'},'slow',allDone);
});
});
function allDone()
{
$('#upper').hide();
}
I'm not sure how important the allDone() method is. You could probably do away with it.
you must use jqgrid
or just for sorting you can use tablesorter which is very easy to implement
I am currently trying to modify a Javascript function that "slides in" a <div>. The script as it is requires you to define the height of the div, so it is mostly useless in dynamically filled <div>s. I found some text on the clientHeight property in javascript, but it would appear that it doesn't support <div>s with display set to none (which is the method used to slide the div in). That makes sense, as the height of that div in the client window is nothing.
Basically I was wondering what other methods you all know of, or if there's a way to get around the clientHeight = 0 when display: none.
Thanks!
Oh, and here's the function I'm using:
function getDivHeight(objName) {
return boxHeight = document.getElementById(objName).clientHeight;
}
A simple solution is to set it's visibility to "hidden" and it's display to "block" and measure it. However, some modern browsers will manage to update the page layout during this short time and you will get a nasty flicker. The easiest way to overcome this is to place the element in an absolutely positioned container with overflow set to "hidden".
I've had luck cloning the element, moving it offscreen, then displaying it to get the client height:
var original = document.getElementById(some_id);
var new_item = original.cloneNode(true);
document.body.appendChild(new_item); // item already hidden, so it won't show yet.
// you may wish to validate it is hidden first
new_item.style.position = "absolute";
new_item.style.left = "-1000px";
new_item.style.display = "block";
var height = new_item.clientHeight;
EDIT: Looking through the jQuery code, they do exactly what Tsvetomir Tsonev suggests. jQuery temporarily sets the style to "display: block; position: absolute; visibility: none", and then measures the height, swapping the properties back after the measurement.
So, it looks like you're stuck with having to do something hackish, whether it's cloning the node or risking having it flicker in some browsers... I like Tsvetomir's suggestion better than my initial hack as it, at least, doesn't involve cloning a node into the DOM that you don't need. Either way, the element must not be set to "display: none" in order to measure it's height. Isn't the DOM wonderful? :-)
EDIT 2: Also worth noting that, after jQuery gathers the height, it adds allowances for padding, margin and border sizes, so you may need to as well.
Yes, an element that is not displayed on the page has no dimensions.
It kind of makes sense. Consider an element that has been created and filled with a bunch of text, but not yet added to the document tree. How high is it? Depends on font-size. How big is font-size? Depends where in the document that div is inserted; its parent font-size would inherit through.
Similarly for an element with “display: none”. It's not rendered, so it has no dimensions. Couldn't we ask “how high would this be if it were ‘display: block’”? Turns out no, because if it were displayed, that in itself could change the dimensions of its parent block, and then the dimension of displayed elements would be inconsistent with the dimensions of non-displayed elements!
The typical solution is to unset “display: none”, measure the height of the element, and then immediately re-set “display: none”. The browser won't redraw in the middle of a bit of JavaScript, so you won't see a flicker on the page.
I nkow you guys solved this a long time ago but I thought I should share this since it quite tricky to get the height of a hidden div tag.
heres what I did after reading your post,
I placed the div i want to slide inside a 1px height div with overflow set to hidden.
you dont even need to set the display of the inner div to none since it is already there and if you use offsetHeight it should return the proper height for all browsers and you can use that height to slide your div up an down.
PEACE!!!
In IE you could try scrollHeight, but I'm not sure if it will work or if it is cross browser.