angular.js, branch v1.0.3 chore(release): cut the 1.0.3 bouncy-thunder release 2012-11-27T00:44:46+00:00 Igor Minar 2012-11-27T00:12:48+00:00 a03e370a09083961f79883846c75bbfcd527fd2f 






docs(CHANGELOG): release notes for 1.0.3 and 1.1.1 releases
2012-11-27T00:44:46+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-26T20:51:03+00:00

23677d3ddbbdb2b5cf82b73cb4234237e92e8c79












fix($location): reset $location.$$replace with every watch call
2012-11-26T22:24:39+00:00

Rado Kirov

2012-09-22T01:57:22+00:00

fc781560a341c804b02c7efd30c6d3010206401c

Closes #1111





Closes #1111







docs: load angular from CDN only on production
2012-11-26T20:33:45+00:00

Vojta Jina

2012-09-17T23:55:48+00:00

c9199ee6634af6b960524d91bdae706860a49d0c

So that when running the docs locally, eg. during e2e testing, we use the latest build version of angular, rather than the stable one from CDN.

This fixes e2e tests running with Testacular.





So that when running the docs locally, eg. during e2e testing, we use the latest build version of angular, rather than the stable one from CDN.

This fixes e2e tests running with Testacular.







fix(ngClassOdd/ngClassEven): support shrinking/reordering in repeaters
2012-11-26T20:33:45+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-23T21:46:58+00:00

6f18adedef60ddb972a446046270f98c4ac18bb7

We need to watch $index in addition to cssClasses because only then
we can correctly respond to shrinking or reordered repeaters.

Closes #1076





We need to watch $index in addition to cssClasses because only then
we can correctly respond to shrinking or reordered repeaters.

Closes #1076







style(jqLite): better variable names
2012-11-26T20:33:45+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-23T21:45:46+00:00

6ad894cd5831fee19b60e57563bfee7a3f0ec995

selector => cssClasses





selector => cssClasses







fix(ngRepeat): support mostly-stable repeating for primitives
2012-11-26T20:33:45+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-23T21:43:30+00:00

cde2f1a868ffacdc592803358130587fd73aca7b

I'm reverting changes that were originally done to ngRepeat to fix #933,
because these are now not necessary after the previous changes to keep
ngModel always synced with the DOM.





I'm reverting changes that were originally done to ngRepeat to fix #933,
because these are now not necessary after the previous changes to keep
ngModel always synced with the DOM.







fix(ngModel): sync ngModel state with scope state
2012-11-26T20:33:45+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-23T21:40:01+00:00

6a831495dedc81e995bba276084eb3b23643557a

In cases when we reuse elements in a repeater but associate
them with a new scope (see #933 - repeating over array of
primitives) it's possible for the internal ngModel state and
the scope state to get out of sync. This change ensure that
the two are always sync-ed up even in cases where we
reassociate an element with a different (but similar) scope.

In the case of repeating over array of primitives it's still
possible to run into issue if we iterate over primitives and
use form controls or similar widgets without ngModel - oh well,
we'd likely need a special repeater for primitives to deal
with this properly, even then there might be cornercases.

Closes #933





In cases when we reuse elements in a repeater but associate
them with a new scope (see #933 - repeating over array of
primitives) it's possible for the internal ngModel state and
the scope state to get out of sync. This change ensure that
the two are always sync-ed up even in cases where we
reassociate an element with a different (but similar) scope.

In the case of repeating over array of primitives it's still
possible to run into issue if we iterate over primitives and
use form controls or similar widgets without ngModel - oh well,
we'd likely need a special repeater for primitives to deal
with this properly, even then there might be cornercases.

Closes #933







test(ngRepeat): clean up and improve tests
2012-11-26T19:39:10+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-23T15:08:47+00:00

6e2c38f54dc012dc919cdd7f7ab9b73dc1e99c66












fix(ngRepeat): attempt to simplify and improve existing fix for #933
2012-11-26T19:39:00+00:00

Igor Minar

2012-11-26T19:25:38+00:00

00e7e3141819e14ced3279fa5dfb8eba4ff89e5f

I'm keeping this in for future reference. The issue with this solution
is that if we shift() the first item in the array, the whole repeater
DOM will be rebuilt from scratch, we need to do better than that.





I'm keeping this in for future reference. The issue with this solution
is that if we shift() the first item in the array, the whole repeater
DOM will be rebuilt from scratch, we need to do better than that.