Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature]: Sequenced / Staggered Transition Support #73

Closed
setsun opened this issue Jun 11, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

[Feature]: Sequenced / Staggered Transition Support #73

setsun opened this issue Jun 11, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@setsun
Copy link
Contributor

setsun commented Jun 11, 2017

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?

Feature

What is the current behavior?

Currently I don't believe there is support in the library for supporting sequenced or staggered transitions.

Example: Say I have 10 items that enter at the same time in a CSSTransitionGroup. The current behavior is that if I have a transitionEnter CSS class defined, all of these animate at the same time.

What is the expected behavior?

Following on the previous example, if I have 10 items that enter a CSSTransitionGroup at the same time I want to be able to specify if they stagger in or come one after another (opposed to animating at the same time). Example below for staggered transitions, the sequential one would be similar, but distinct in that transitions can only kick off after the previous one has finished.

Staggered Transition Example GIF

staggered

Ideas on implementation

Thoughts? I could spin up a PR in my free time to get a quick proof of concept since I think this would be useful for others, but I also know the API is in-flux in this PR: #24

@setsun setsun changed the title Feature Request: Sequenced / Staggered Transition Support [Feature]: Sequenced / Staggered Transition Support Jun 11, 2017
@setsun
Copy link
Contributor Author

setsun commented Jun 20, 2017

For anyone interested, I've opened a PR here: #78

@silvenon
Copy link
Collaborator

For posterity: see #78 and #340 for context about why we decided to not implement this feature.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants