* Since Cite development happens in two repos (here and the Parsoid
repo), integrated tests ensures that changes don't fall too far
out of sync.
CI runs Parsoid-integrated-mode tests in extensions repo with the
vendor-released Parsoid.
Parsoid CI runs Parsoid-standalone-mode tests in the Parsoid repo
which also has a copy of the citeParserTests.txt file found here.
But, that CI run uses the Parsoid patch itself.
This difference makes for unnecessrily laborious test syncing
while making changes to the two repos. It is manageable for one-off
changes but when making lots of updates that changes tests a lot,
this quickly becomes painful.
* For now, we can break this coupling temporarily by disabling
Parsoid-integrated-mode test runs. This simplifies the test syncing
by letting patches in Cite repo to be merged in a chain and then
doing a single test sync to the Parsoid repo (otherwise, Parsoid's
CI will be broken since the html/php sections in Parsoid's cite
test copy will be out of date).
* Filed T354215 to move Parsoid's Cite implemntation to this repo
which eliminates this complexity altogether.
Change-Id: Id5727381b0e23058d098180c308797b2555ad02f
This classifies as a "warning" because we still show everything,
just with an error message appended.
Disabling the Parsoid tests right away hopefully makes it easier to
do the same change in Parsoid.
Bug: T202593
Depends-On: If14acd1070617ca8c4d15be6b1759bd47ead4926
Change-Id: I294b59f989f553932b40d08308906dd72d92d2cd
* This now aligns with Parsoid commit 0fab92ba453d424aedeadaaa9e1514c42bbd94d1
* Disabled the newly added tests because that Parsoid fixes for the
tests haven't been released to vendor to let CI pass these tests.
* Re-enabled a previously disabled test.
Change-Id: I4ab87d2d486b7a1fef652c50c4f1e79ddfe83ce6
This reverts commit b163add15b.
Reason for revert: This was my mistake. I forgot that reverting this
would break Parsoid CI once the Parsoid Cite patch merged. So, I have to
wait till the Parsoid Cite change is released to vendor before I sync
the test change here.
Change-Id: Icaecee1e56907980681aae01be377b6906bd93a6
Check out how this gets rid of so many "to do" as well as
"deprecated" comments.
Next qustion: The elements in the stack become more and more
complicated. It's probably worth converting them from arrays into
first-class objects. But this is for another patch.
Bug: T353266
Change-Id: If14acd1070617ca8c4d15be6b1759bd47ead4926
For example, use convenient upstream methods, and generally make the
test setup a bit more readable.
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: Ifab71041fcc3f804315793ca7b783f84829c7a0f
Same arguments as in Iafa2412. The one reason to use more detailled
per-method @covers annotations is to avoid "accidental coverage"
where code is marked as being covered by tests that don't assert
anything that would be meaningful for this code. This is especially a
problem with older, bigger classes with lots of side effects.
But all the new classes we introduced over the years are small, with
predictable, local effects.
That's also why we keep the more detailled @covers annotations for
the original Cite class.
Bug: T353227
Bug: T353269
Change-Id: I69850f4d740d8ad5a7c2368b9068dc91e47cc797
I wanted to make this a unit test but it turns out the
Sanitizer::safeEncodeAttribute() calls currently make this
impossible.
Bug: T353269
Change-Id: I5266e7b8b67db1c812dc9e4675d0c079ab1f9a40
This patch only moves existing code around without changing any
behavior. What I basically did was merging the old "guardedReferences"
method into "references", and then splitting the resulting code in
other ways. Now we see a few other concepts emerging. But the idea
something would be "guarded" (how?) is gone.
The most critical detail in this patch are the new method names, and
how the code is split. The names should tell a story, and the methods
should do exactly what the name says. Suggestions?
Bug: T353266
Change-Id: I8b7921ce24487e9657e4193ea6a2e3e7d7b0b1c3
This removes almost 200 lines from the main class.
This patch intentionally doesn't make any changes to the code but
only moves it around. Further improvements are for later patches.
Bug: T353269
Change-Id: Ic73f1b7458b3f7b7b89806a88a1111161e3cf094
> We lose useful coverage and spend valuable time keeping these tags
> accurate through refactors (or worse, forget to do so).
>
> I am not disabling the "only track coverage of specified subject"
> benefits, nor am I claiming coverage in in classes outside the
> subject under test.
>
> Tracking tiny per-method details wastes time in keeping tags
> in sync during refactors, and time to realize (and fix) when people
> inevitably don't keep them in sync, and time lost in finding
> uncovered code to write tests for only to realize it was already
> covered but "not yet claimed".
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/q/owner:Krinkle+is:merged+message:%2522Widen%2522
Change-Id: Iafa241210b81ba1cbfee74e3920fb044c86d09fc
The main benefit is that the two lines that set and reset
$this->inReferencesGroup are now next to each other. More can be
done in later patches.
Bug: T353266
Change-Id: Ib3f40c40e0b1854f8e5a32af600f28931fffdb8c
I played around with a few options (see patchset 1) but ended
introducing new terminology:
* "Backlink" describes the ↑ button down in the list of <references>
that jumps back up into the article. The code was already using
"backlink" in some places.
* "Backlink target" is the id="…" attribute up there, visible as the
typical [1] in the article.
* I use "jump" to describe the idea that clicking the [1] jumps down
to the full reference.
* "Jump target" is the id="…" down there in the list of <references>.
* "Jump link" is the same id, but encoded to be used as the href="…"
attribute when clicking the [1].
I hope this makes sense. Suggestions welcome.
Another benefit is that "normalization" is really only normalization
now, not any URL and/or HTML encoding.
Bug: T298278
Change-Id: I5a64ac43aef895110b61df65b27f683b131886fb
This moves the actual parsing down to be done much later in the
process. This won't make any difference in production but makes it
easier to refactor the code further.
Note I tried to use a StatusValue object but couldn't because it
merges seemingly identical messages, while the plain array is fine
with containing duplicates. There is one parser test that covers
this. While we could change this it needs discussion and most
probably a PM decision.
Change-Id: I7390b688a33dace95753470a927bbe4de43ea03a
The "parser marker" placeholders are case-sensitive, e.g. for a tag
that's written like <rEf> the placeholder will also say …-rEf-…. This
was really just a mistake.
The error is as old as this code is. Added in commit 75004e33 in
2009.
Note we shouldn't use /i at the end because the marker itself should
not be case-insensitive. Only the tag name.
Instead of adding more (slow) test cases I update two that are
exactly about this part of Cite (nested tags) anyway.
Bug: T64335
Change-Id: I44c7a42a0da682a1082952fd1af817bf7d45378c
Two problems:
1. Manipulating globals directly affects all following tests. They
are not independent from each other. This problem can be seen in
CiteTest.
2. Some test cases in testValidateRef don't test what you think.
For example, the test for a conflicting "extends" + "follow" was not
failing because of the conflict but because "extends" was disabled
and disallowed.
Change-Id: Iaa4e1f3f3222155d59984e577cba3f0b8dec40c3
This error message really always meant nothing but "there is an
unknown parameter in your <ref> tag". It's unnecessarily confusing
only for historical reasons. See T299280#9384546 for a long
explanation.
Bug: T299280
Change-Id: Ic224d5828f7b7ac0928c44f526c61654ccf3425e
