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
Since parser test requirements are per-file, move the smoke test which
requires `{{#ifeq}}` (from [[mw:Extension:ParserFunctions]]) into its
own file and define the requirement properly in the file header.
That avoids spurious parser test failures if developers don't have
the ParserFunctions extension installed locally.
Change-Id: Ia5ffbe0896d5033fe2da526e42bf111edbc56adf
This is only to document the current status quo and make later patches
smaller and easier to review.
Bug: T298278
Change-Id: I6c78f4d3ee32de596f2b5ee081d56eaffb1cc7bd
Previously the reflist was added at the end of the last line of text,
which messes up paragraph wrapping (as seen in many test cases), and
generated invalid HTML when the last line was a list item (T148701).
(second try, previously reverted in 8c933d03c5)
Note this affects only pages where the <references /> tag is missing,
and the references section is auto-generated at the very end of the page.
Bug: T148701
Change-Id: Ib2101346434a4e317b5fc7379215b60c7020cb2b
The most common cleanup required by switching to tidy output was adding
missing <p>-wrappers to the last item before <references/>.
Bug: T246285
Change-Id: I7c8a08c4e6eff7caf4539a26fae475a4133f9a0c
While working on the patch I4303642 I was worried about the line
array_pop( $this->refCallStack )
in the rollback code. Since the patch changed the position of follow
elements in the stack, an array_pop() would pop different elements.
It turns out this is impossible. Rollbacks are only done for <ref>
elements inside a <references> tag, immediatelly after reaching the
closing </references>. It's impossible to use follow="…" inside
<references>. It will not be added to the stack, and therefore not
rolled back.
Even if the edge case would be possible, the *old* code that placed
follow elements on the *other* side of the stack would have been
wrong then.
The test cases in this patch try to hit this edge case, and are
expected to not be able to do so.
Change-Id: I4380bf443db17c6214dbfa2cbda62b46db04258a
Previously the reflist was added at the end of the last line of text,
which messes up paragraph wrapping (as seen in many test cases), and
generated invalid HTML when the last line was a list item (T148701).
Bug: T148701
Change-Id: Ifc873fc913e717026d80d54b570c594d1073fb42
Since I3db5175 the ParserCloned hook handler does not rely on cloning
the Cite object any more. There is no cloning any more. This is dead
code and we could remove it. Just to be sure I propose to keep the
method, but let it throw an exception.
Bug: T240248
Change-Id: I2057ea652ca25f4c7031c28a6e713671738f5e22
The new extends="…" feature is using numbers like "1.2". These should be
localized in languages like Hebrew that uses other symbols for the digits.
But the "." should not change.
The existing feature when a <ref> is reused multiple times does have the
same "issue". But it seems this is intentional, because it is covered by
a test. Note this is not visible in German, because German uses custom
labels "a", "b", and so on.
This patch also improves the so called "smoke" tests and makes one cover
numbers up to "1,10" for a <ref> that is reused that often.
Bug: T239725
Change-Id: Iffcb56e1c7be09cefed9dabb1d6391eb6ad995ce
I noticed a possible issue related to the $this->refSequence counter
in the patch Ida9612d. Some of these counters might get messes up, but
there was never a test that checked what will happen to the *next*
reference then.
I checked the test cases in this patch with a very old version of the
codebase.
Change-Id: If6e56f727dce5d0e5e38e048e602437597248a42
