Don't set PanResponder if Slider is disabled #112
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, when the Slider is disabled,
onSlidingStart()is called when the user touches the Slider, butonSlidingComplete()is never called. This behavior is a bit inconsistent.With this PR, when Slider is disabled, the Slider will not register any touch events (neither
onSlidingStart()noronSlidingComplete()are called). Another solution is to callonSlidingStart()when the user touches the slider andonSlidingComplete()when the slider is released (regardless of whether the Slider is disabled).I took my approach since when the Slider is disabled, no sliding can take place, so there's no concept of a slide "starting" or "completing." A benefit of the other approach is that it makes it easy to respond when a user tries to slide the Slider when it's disabled.
If you'd prefer approach #2, I'm happy to modify the PR.
If you think things are best how they are now, I think the README should be updated to clarify the behavior.