fix: Refactor DOMElement

[alexanderGugel]

• No longer keep track of unnecessary state (e.g. uiEvents)
• Fix onMount
• Allow adding the DOMElement via Node#addComponent instead of DOMElement
  constructor
• Improve (basically rewrite) test suite
• Allow recycling of DOMElement
• Store state in external Spec (consistent with Node)
• Make DOMElement#getValue consistent with spec naming conventions
  (e.g. styles/ id)
• Add missing getter functions
• Fix documentation
• Obsolete/ Remove DOMElement#draw DOMElement#init (users called it
  explicitly due to confusion)
• Fix return values described in the docs (make methods chainable)
• Properly reset ElementCache when elements are being reused
• Generalize dismounting: preserve DOMElement spec
• Reset properties, attributes etc. onDismount

Simple example of one of the things that was broken:

varX=10;varY=10;for(varx=0;x<X;x++){for(vary=0;y<Y;y++){vardiv=newDOMNode({properties: {background: 'red'}});div.setSizeMode('relative','relative');div.setProportionalSize(1/X,1/Y);div.setOpacity(0.1);div.setAlign(x/X,y/Y);div.setRotation(0,0,Math.PI*0.1);scene.addChild(div);setTimeout(function(div){scene.removeChild(div);setTimeout(function(div){scene.addChild(div);div.el.setProperty('background','blue');}.bind(null,div),100);}.bind(null,div),1000);}}

Before: https://api-te.famo.us/codemanager/v1/containers/fe4b52ef-9d0b-4f71-9368-e52d22625c6b/share

A lot of stuff was just broken.

Please review @DnMllr

[alexanderGugel]

@michaelobriena What can I do to make this less controversial? E.g. I didn't change any user facing APIs. Is there anything else here that would need to be resolved?

[alexanderGugel]

This is still something that really needs to happen IMO, since the DOMElement in its current state doesn't handle a lot of cases correctly and there is also no reason why users shouldn't be able to do node.addComponent(new DOMElement). This PR fixes a lot of those case, but conflicts with feature-systems. Rebasing.

[alexanderGugel]

I uncommented the tests for now. I still need to adjust them to use the Node.stub and TransformSystem.stub, but I don't think this presents a regression, since most of the tests have been commented out for feature-systems anyways.

[alexanderGugel]

There are some nasty merge conflicts due to feature-systems. I'm rebasing this right now.

[alexanderGugel]

@DnMllr Thoughts?

[alexanderGugel]

@DnMllr Could you review this, please?

[alexanderGugel]

@DnMllr Any thoughts on this?

[alexanderGugel]

@DnMllr Could you please review this if possible? Thanks.

[alexanderGugel]

@DnMllr I rebased this a couple of times now. I'm just gonna leave this open for now and wait for the review.

[alexanderGugel]

@DnMllr Could you have a look over/ review this? Any thoughts?

[alexanderGugel]

@michaelobriena
I'm just going to leave this open until someone finds the time to review this.

update The implementation of render size in the DOMElement changed in the mean time. I'm looking into it right now.

[trusktr]

Please, please, please, can you guys merge this sometime soon?

@michaelobriena@alexanderGugel@marklu

[trusktr]

Hmmm, I have an idea: I'll merge this into http://github.com/infamous/engine and test it, then publish that on NPM (infamous-engine) if it fixes things.

cc @talves@steveblue@gadicc

[trusktr]

The community and I would greatly appreciate if you guys spent all your time right now fixing bugs, not making new features, not making new API changes, not planning other libraries or frameworks. Just fixing all the bugs we have. It doesn't make sense to move forward with a boatload of bugs at hand.

[jd-carroll]

This PR works well