IOS 2.74 build 64 and x-referencing a prev topic 'Listview inside Horizontal Arrangement'

IOS version 2.74 build 64 getting much closer to finish line, I think.


Here are 2 screenshots which should show exactly the same Listview layout for Player attributes.

Listview on Android (Padel sport) and Listview on IOS, (s/b Squash sport).

Android version = perfect, the full list shows 8 attributes for 24 Players, plus Column titles.

IOS version = a single grey bar, no content, and no height whereas it should show 8 attributes for 9 players plus column titles.

The IOS version uses the latest companion 2.74, build 64.

Both have same designer selections and block coding.

As I couldn't get the IOS version to work, then delved into the history and there are a number of prior references to this problem.

Pls let me know the status of 'Listview inside Horizontal Arrangement' - does it now work within IOS?

Thks

If you want to send me the project privately I can dig into it a bit more deeply, but the general challenge we have is that by default ListView tries to make itself as large as its parent, and in automatic mode an arrangement tries to make itself as small as its children. In iOS, the relationships are all expressed as a system of equations known as a constraint layout. Unfortunately, one solution to the system of equations is to set everything to be 0 in size, making it disappear. We're still working to tweak the rules to try and make the iOS layouts behave similarly to the Android versions.

Evan

Thanks for that. I'll send you the file on Thursday. I hope this will help you determining the solution.

Please confirm email address to use.

As a workaround you can put for the iOS devices the high for the elements with problems as a fix number.
Edit: And maintaining the same AIA app for Android and iOS

Evan

File emailed to you on Friday.

Thks

Simon,

Thks - yes, I do want to keep same file for both Android & IOS.

Apologies but I don't understand your first comment. Prob my fault.

Pls clarify - ta

A copy afected Blocs Examples:

Thanks Simon.

I had no idea that such a thing could be done. That's not to say many people don't know, could be just me.

It would certainly help with a number of commands and controls.

I'll have to do some research to find out how to do it.

Thks again, very helpful

Hello Mr Enjayk

I have a bit complex app (android and iphone) with more +10.000 blocks, 4 virtual screens and 3 screens and for me this workaround runs well to wait a MIT solution. You must to do several tests until the right dimmensions for the Ipohne are well.

Simon

My Apps are similar size and agree that they need careful coding to satisfy both device types automatically.

I tried and failed to find any components/blocks that would identify the device type, Android or IOS when loading. Where are they?

I find the issues with tests where the height or width component is not right when I'm testing the app running whit the IPA object.

I do not have an email from you on Friday. Can you please confirm the address you emailed?

Thanks ABG.

Never been in this section before. Always a first!

So are these 'platform' components widely publicised as an aid to constructing android & ios versions of apps?

Evan, sent you test email to check routing.

My email on Friday was bounced, though that message didn't bounce back as a highlight, so didn't see it.

Sorry, I don't run with the iOS crowd.

@ewpatton @Ferran_SIMON @abg

A thank you. I think I've created a solution to this particular problem for my apps and used all your comments as the prompts.

What was critical was the info about the using the PLATFORM block/component (@Ferran_SIMON) and its whereabouts (@ABG) - that's what opened the door, so to speak. I hadn't picked up on this essential matter when reading the App Inventor for IOS section and related material.

Using the 'Platform' property allowed me to introduce some logic to specify various settings between Android & IOS for a whole range of dimensions (specific width, width percent, height, font size and similar).

It may not be elegant coding but the result is good.

Thanks again.