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
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 is a concept that's only relevant when a sub-reference (formerly
known as BookReferencing) appears before the parent reference it
belongs to. Let the name reflect this.
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: Iabf259e72942ea70cb1cc1e0ca5a5d8cf15d7225
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
Allow other extensions to provide lists of page content
models for which they want to load the Cite toolbar button.
This will, for example, make it possible for ProofreadPage
to have the button on Page pages.
Bug: T348403
Change-Id: Id28cb0b6cb8a2b86a66b17232575afe513969c54
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
