Note this codebase appears to be dual-licensed. Some files mention MIT,
but extension.json and some other files mention GPL.
Since WMDE typically uses GPL, I will continue to mark the files we
created as such.
Change-Id: I126da10f7fb13a6d4c99e96e72d024b2e5ecee06
Note how this code was broken since 2018 (Iff480bc). In this execution
path, $val is a string. There is no $val['dir'].
Luckily, this was dead code since 2008 already. See
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/rECIT448a99da5108c26ce88d3df7cf5df2b5b5b1d1d3
line 283 on the right.
Bug: T237241
Change-Id: I671f3379a124a2644a9b0eac38d46c59106980a7
The main motivation here is to cover the fallback code that was moved
in I20c814d. At some point we might touch this code again.
Bug: T238194
Change-Id: I0ab8a34b09790f42b10376eb3730c3b3c4ef53d2
This code is typically not executed on special pages and such, so we
assume the isArticle check doesn't make much of a difference. The main
difference we are aware of is that this will exclude previews.
Bug: T214493
Change-Id: I5155329b8a549adbd3b17c1f1014bb8bbc6768f4
1. Most existing CiteTests can be unit tests. They run so much faster
this way.
2. I modified some test cases to cover all trim() in the code.
3. The strict type hint in CiteHooks is removed because the parameter
is not used. Having a hard type hint for what is effectively dead code
makes the code more brittle for changes done outside of this codebase.
Change-Id: I1bff1d6e02d9ef17d5e6b66aeec3ee42bba99cf4
This fixes a series of issues:
* There is nothing about a "frame" in the Cite class any more.
* There is no addModules() call in the Cite class any more.
Change-Id: I20c814d46c26825c5c07eab0a5586de3a531eee7
To be honest I don't get why this lazy registration was done in the
first place. None of the 4 other hooks should ever be called before
the ParserFirstCallInit hook got called.
Also, under which circumstances can the ParserFirstCallInit hook be
called more than once?
Both scenarios would be wrong, as far as I'm concerned. Either I'm
missing something, or this code can indeed be simplified. Maybe it was
something to make it more compatible with older MediaWiki versions?
The only reason I can think of is: in all situations that do not
involve a parser, having the 4 extra hooks registered is pointless.
Does this waste space and/or runtime in the $wgHooks registry?
Change-Id: I5ef1495f4ce7bce940fa5f8e700af3d2c4851a01
Two motivations:
1. I want the two deeper nested functions guardedRef() and
guardedReferences() to have less side effects.
2. In guardedReferences() guardedRef() is called. Both set the
property. That's redundant. The new code avoids this.
Change-Id: I48146f8b6d91122a904be0a552ffe3b03bc0481f
Main motivation is to make the code easier to test, and easier to
extract to smaller services.
Does this make sense? I'm not sure any more. One can argue that
everything Cite does happens in the context of a specific Parser. Why
shouldn't the code have access to this Parser?
Change-Id: I9d0cb44d96ec70a56af57f86aeb1f264f52c8bc4
Can use a shortcut where we pass the expected value directly. Verified
that we're still asserting equality.
Change-Id: I63512488c50e599df23d5dae2a5064218e311e90
Note it doesn't make a difference if this is behind the feature flag or
not. It should always be forbidden, and in fact is: Either the follows
attribute is unknown, or the combination is forbidden.
Bug: T236256
Change-Id: Iebbb2d1d5bab183ab0590b8a7a7f6e79d319b72c
What we find critical is:
* That all tests relevant for book referencing are in a separate file.
* That unimplemented stuff is marked with TODOs.
Not having to move tests to another file allows for nice diffs.
I tried to order the tests as good as I could. E.g. have all tests with
a group="…" next to each other, followed by all with a follow="…".
Change-Id: Idc1d9e7843b341235ab3d8ebe398e01946eb1845
