The previous patch deprecated the last conditional depending on magic
meanings of 0 and -1, so now we're free to let "count" take on a more
natural meaning: the number of times a footnote mark appears in
article text.
Includes a small hack to avoid changing parser output, by
artificially decrementing the count by one during rendering. The
hack can be removed and test output updated in a separate patch.
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: I6f76c50357b274ff97321533e52f435798048268
Stop relying on the magic number distinction between "count" = 0 and -1,
by explicitly testing the "name" field instead.
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: I9dce16b01814e19f508d45b927de570049f0e0f5
Encapsulate all information about a ref inside of the internal
structure, rather than relying on the container to be organized by
group.
Bug: T353451
Change-Id: I4c91e8089638b7655bf120402a4a5fcbd1b35452
These fields get automatic values during normal operation, but we
should make this explicit in tests which meddle with internals. This
seems to add some clarity, and helps prepare for encapsulation.
Bug: T353451
Change-Id: I8b012a270f16139671f77ea04645d627b2fba87d
In this case, there was never a ref with this name in the article so
no backlinks should be rendered.
TODO:
* test case with empty parent backlink and LDR parent
Bug: T353451
Change-Id: I8a7abd05a48ce83da3beb92b15e894d53252bd33
This is another improvement after I7390b68. Status objects are made
to keep track of multiple errors. The only difference is: The merge
method skips duplicates when the message and all parameters are
identical. This causes a minor user-facing change. One of the
shortest possible examples is:
<references>
<ref />
<ref />
</references>
This showed two identical, indistinguishable error messages before,
but will only show one now. We argue this is fine. The duplicates
are confusing and of (almost) no value to the user. In case the
information is relevant the correct solution is to make the error
messages distinguishable, or introduce a message like "multiple
<ref> tags defined in <references> have the same error". This is
something for a later patch, if needed.
Bug: T353266
Change-Id: I444105462ed24d5ba37b057622b4dc847b40f8d8
Testing internal methods is brittle. This code path is already
covered by parser test "Valid follow="…" after it's parent"
Bug: T353451
Change-Id: I3b7a4b9962de1f25a7b57f82d80813219d633594
Same as Icfa8215 where we removed the …_suffix messages.
This patch is not blocked on anything according to CodeSearch:
https://codesearch.wmcloud.org/search/?q=cite_references%3F_link_prefix
According to GlobalSearch there are 2 usages we need to talk about:
https://global-search.toolforge.org/?q=.®ex=1&namespaces=8&title=Cite.references%3F.link.prefix.*
zh.wiktionary replaces "cite_ref-" with "_ref-", and "cite_note-"
with "_note-", i.e. they did nothing but remove the word "cite". This
happened in 2006, with no explanation.
ka.wikibooks and ka.wikiquote replace "cite_note-" with "_შენიშვნა-",
which translates back to "_note-". One user did this in 2007,
16 seconds apart.
It appears like both are attempts to localize what can be localized,
no matter if it's really necessary or not.
https://zh.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shibo77?offset=20060510https://ka.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trulala?offset=20070219
Note how one user experimented with an "a" in some of the edits to
see what effect the change might have, to imediatelly revert it.
The modifications don't really have an effect on anything, except on
the anchors in the resulting <a href="#_ref-5"> and <sup id="_ref-5">
HTML. It might also be briefly visible in the browser's address bar
when such a link is clicked. We can only assume the two users did this
to make the URL appear shorter (?). A discussion apparently never
happened. Bot users are inactive.
Both pieces of HTML are generated in the Cite code. Removing the
messages will change all places the same time. All links will
continue to work. The only possible effect is that hard-coded
weblinks to an individual reference will link to the top of the
article instead. But:
a) This is extremely unlikely to happen. There is no reason to link
to a reference from outside of the article.
b) Such links are not guaranteed to work anyway as they can break
for a multitude of other reasons, e.g. the <ref> being renamed,
removed, or replaced.
c) Even if such a link breaks, it still links to the correct article.
There is also no on-wiki code on zh.wiktionary that would do anything
with the shortened prefix:
https://zh.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F_%28ref%7Cnote%29-%2F&title=Special%3A%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1&ns4=1&ns8=1&ns10=1&ns12=1&ns828=1&ns2300=1
I argue this is safe to remove, even without contacting the mentioned
communities first.
Bug: T321217
Change-Id: I160a119710dc35679dbdc2f39ddf453dbd5a5dfa
This fixes a minor issue introduced in I294b59f. Two identical
dir="…" with different capitalizations should not be reported as an
error.
Turns out the implementation in the Cite extension doesn't care
about this capitalization at all. That's why I suggest to do the
normalization as early as possible. This is slightly different in
the Parsoid implementation.
Bug: T202593
Change-Id: I96b4a281d6020d61d1f36ec027cf833bbb244f03
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
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
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
