Based on the mobile version evaluation in task T370876, indentation is aligned for subrefs in the reflist for mobile view to match the web version
Bug: T371666
Change-Id: I40a3fe0b9cc607365e0ead26cf554921fe0abc5b
Caller can be more ignorant about what happens inside the mock.
Mostly, this patch is meant to prepare for an internal refactor,
minimizing test changes.
Bug: T372871
Change-Id: Ie08624fea4a89ce6a6f61d5430cf5b7eb95278fa
The model is now fully owned by the edit panel and I could not find
any usages of this outside of that class using codesearch.
Bug: T369005
Change-Id: I911fee99d6c910e6e40e0b3cbdb4c7ab60b413c6
Making sure that change events form the fields are handled in the
panel and forwarded to the dialog with the information needed.
Also slighly moving some calls in the setup process that inits
the dialog and removing some duplication. Calling focus on the
edit panel only makes sense in the ready step. Not during setup.
Bug: T369005
Change-Id: I4f9a022a06ec6543b106620eae030235b8f6712b
That's another step to separate the editing form the dialog. The dialog should not know about internals of the edit panel.
And eventually the dialog can get rid of the referenceModel property.
Bug: T369005
Change-Id: I9cf3a68ef58bc5791497af362c0572734e4bcadd
This is a direct follow up for I6f05842 where we already started
supporting dashes, but converted them to underscores. The only change
in this patch is that the CSS class will use the message key as it
is, without the dashes being converted to underscores. I added a test
case specifically for this.
Bug: T352676
Change-Id: Ic22e897c27b8371e3b1ed63932b619e7af71bd5c
In some tests we want to see the message parameters. But not here.
Simply echoing the message key (thats parameter number one) is
enough.
Change-Id: Id9824cbbe944c84c9fd1932b0863ac1b3f232b75
I think this was just a mistake in I5457304 when this test was
written. There was never an ->exists() call in the code, as far as
I can see.
This is motivated by our ongoing, probably year-long efforts to
clean this codebase up, see T335129.
Change-Id: I72d89213c5cff06d78ac119b3c79827afbd0b4f5
I could not find any connect() was applied from this codebase to
the SurfaceModel. Looking back it seems that the code that connects
the event was removed in Icba13d84e10cf18a6c68e26448b2efe93b8c42b8
and the disconnect was never touched.
Bug: T369005
Change-Id: Ieab623751dd946ba43c42a1be144e6b3725abce3
There's no need to populate and use the form fields when we're
reusing a reference. The group and content are already stored
in the model and we can insert more directly.
I found that it's also not needed to update the internal item
because we're not changing the content or group. The same is done
in Citoid when reusing a reference.
Bug: T369003
Change-Id: I57315aafb73b0cd68a0d397d2f79833ac54a7c7f
Singleton always steps up to the original document from fragments, to
give absolute numbering.
Bug: T370874
Change-Id: I0353649289f6c8fe26fa6bdff5d2367b7b575bac
