Some interesting stuff is happening, seems to have revealed bugs:
* Rolled-back warnings are still present on the ref
* Subref reuse numbering starts at 0 instead of 1, and formatting is cringe.
But subref rollback does seem to work!
Change-Id: If6321b34d27370553ba85e63dd1e2ae6a3b7c099
This test was obscured by testing for a field on the parent, but that
would exist if and only if the parent also existed. Clarify the
guard condition and introduce a named local variable for the parent.
Change-Id: I03079f45cf5ba00d54642c89ac4232a944b2f353
Such a message shouldn't exist, and doesn't:
https://global-search.toolforge.org/?q=.®ex=1&namespaces=8&title=Cite+link+label+group-
Additional notes:
* Rename the method to make it more obvious that it's not a cheap
getter, but doing something slightly more expensive.
* Use more appropriate array_key_exists to check if a cache entry
already exists.
* Also add a bit more documentation.
Bug: T297430
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: Ia5827bbf6fd700b87a749aac17320796428f0688
This encapsulation gives us field name, type validation and code
documentation.
This patch only affects ReferenceStack and continues to return
approximately the same array outputs to callers. Some additional
information is included and the placeholder column has a new name.
Bug: T353451
Change-Id: I405fe7ac241f6991fd4c526bfbb58fbc34f2e147
The placeholder field will only be set if the ref exists, so we can
put these in a more logical order.
Change-Id: I2ddfb501fcc3aca936bb45c0d40e4f68c5d2b192
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
These can be hard to read so this patch introduces named, temporary
variables.
PHP reference assignment is helpful here, and has the nice property
of responding correctly to `isset` as if it were called on the
referenced variable. However, we're prevented from using this trick
in more places in the code because of an unfortunate side-effect that
PHP will store `null` under the referenced array key. In some cases
(the ones here), this is harmless because we always test using
`isset` and null behaves the same as an unset value. In other cases
such as arrays that are iterated over, the spurious key and null
value would be more of a nuisance.
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: Ie43592a2f10677ba19842e92fa29eb4bf3be240c
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
* Same as Ie64f4ab in the Cite codebase.
* Mark the changed tests as standalone since this Parsoid code isn't yet
released to vendor and integrated tests run with vendor.
Bug: T299280
Depends-On: Ie64f4ab4831966f66f812ea67cc244718f818afb
Change-Id: I0ea1bc3f57576d215ba4060a0e886e588ffda0b3
