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
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
For example, use convenient upstream methods, and generally make the
test setup a bit more readable.
Bug: T353227
Change-Id: Ifab71041fcc3f804315793ca7b783f84829c7a0f
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
This patch makes only sense together with I5a64ac4 where it is split
from. See I5a64ac4 for details.
The idea is that this patch just re-arranges the code without making
any changes to how the code behaves. This leaves a minimal change
behind that's much easier to revert, if needed.
Bug: T298278
Change-Id: Ie78313b7f3ac1ec7bce5ac7512e60a3bb011480a
This parser test is a bit obscure, in my opinion. We added it in
I8c4de96 to make sure we don't get thousand separators in most
places.
We continued reworking the code since then. By now it's effectively
impossible to "accidentally" get thousand separators. The
problematic methods from the Language class are not even accessible
any more from this code.
To make the tests more robust we now use createNoOpMock (done via
the previous patch) where it matters, specifically for all Language
and Parser mocks. This proves the problematic Language methods are
never called.
Bug: T253743
Bug: T238187
Change-Id: I9bfe1f4decfaf699996da63e19473c2c0d581d9d
Both Language and Parser are extremely complex classes with hundreds
of public methods. We really want to make sure we are not depending
on anything unexpected from these classes. If calls are made into
these classes we want to know exactly what is called.
Doing this also showed that some mocked methods are not even needed.
Change-Id: Icdfff6c07be78a47bf7cadb1813a72581a51272a
