2019-11-05 14:13:18 +00:00
|
|
|
/* global $:off */
|
|
|
|
'use strict';
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-08 14:32:38 +00:00
|
|
|
var
|
|
|
|
utils = require( './utils.js' );
|
2019-11-05 14:13:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Add an attribute to a list item to remove pre-whitespace in Parsoid
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {HTMLElement} listItem List item element
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
function whitespaceParsoidHack( listItem ) {
|
2019-11-13 14:36:36 +00:00
|
|
|
// HACK: Setting data-parsoid removes the whitespace after the list item,
|
|
|
|
// which makes nested lists work.
|
|
|
|
// This is undocumented behaviour and probably very fragile.
|
|
|
|
listItem.setAttribute( 'data-parsoid', '{}' );
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-02 18:50:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Given a comment and a reply link, add the reply link to its document's DOM tree, at the end of
|
|
|
|
* the comment.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {Object} comment Comment data returned by parser#groupThreads
|
|
|
|
* @param {HTMLElement} linkNode Reply link
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
function addReplyLink( comment, linkNode ) {
|
|
|
|
var target = comment.range.endContainer;
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-02 21:39:18 +00:00
|
|
|
// Skip to the end of the "paragraph". This only looks at tag names and can be fooled by CSS, but
|
|
|
|
// avoiding that would be more difficult and slower.
|
|
|
|
while ( target.nextSibling && !ve.isBlockElement( target.nextSibling ) ) {
|
2020-03-02 18:50:36 +00:00
|
|
|
target = target.nextSibling;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Insert the link before trailing whitespace.
|
|
|
|
// In the MediaWiki parser output, <ul>/<dl> nodes are preceded by a newline. Normally it isn't
|
|
|
|
// visible on the page. But if we insert an inline element (the reply link) after it, it becomes
|
|
|
|
// meaningful and gets rendered, which results in additional spacing before some reply links.
|
|
|
|
// Split the text node, so that we can insert the link before the trailing whitespace.
|
|
|
|
if ( target.nodeType === Node.TEXT_NODE ) {
|
|
|
|
target.splitText( target.textContent.match( /\s*$/ ).index );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
target.parentNode.insertBefore( linkNode, target.nextSibling );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-28 19:20:23 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Get a node (if any) that contains the given comment, and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {Object} comment Comment data returned by parser#groupThreads
|
|
|
|
* @return {HTMLElement|null}
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
function getFullyCoveredWrapper( comment ) {
|
|
|
|
var nativeRange, ancestor, node, startMatches, endMatches, length;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nativeRange = utils.getNativeRange( comment );
|
|
|
|
ancestor = nativeRange.commonAncestorContainer;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function isIgnored( node ) {
|
|
|
|
// Ignore empty text nodes, and our own reply buttons
|
|
|
|
return ( node.nodeType === Node.TEXT_NODE && utils.htmlTrim( node.textContent ) === '' ) ||
|
|
|
|
( node.className && node.className.indexOf( 'dt-init-replylink-buttons' ) !== -1 );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function firstNonemptyChild( node ) {
|
|
|
|
node = node.firstChild;
|
|
|
|
while ( node && isIgnored( node ) ) {
|
|
|
|
node = node.nextSibling;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return node;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function lastNonemptyChild( node ) {
|
|
|
|
node = node.lastChild;
|
|
|
|
while ( node && isIgnored( node ) ) {
|
|
|
|
node = node.previousSibling;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return node;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
startMatches = false;
|
|
|
|
node = ancestor;
|
|
|
|
while ( node ) {
|
|
|
|
if ( comment.range.startContainer === node && comment.range.startOffset === 0 ) {
|
|
|
|
startMatches = true;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
node = firstNonemptyChild( node );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
endMatches = false;
|
|
|
|
node = ancestor;
|
|
|
|
while ( node ) {
|
|
|
|
length = node.nodeType === Node.TEXT_NODE ?
|
|
|
|
node.textContent.replace( /[\t\n\f\r ]+$/, '' ).length :
|
|
|
|
node.childNodes.length;
|
|
|
|
if ( comment.range.endContainer === node && comment.range.endOffset === length ) {
|
|
|
|
endMatches = true;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
node = lastNonemptyChild( node );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if ( startMatches && endMatches ) {
|
|
|
|
// If this is the only child, go up one more level
|
|
|
|
while (
|
|
|
|
ancestor.parentNode &&
|
|
|
|
firstNonemptyChild( ancestor.parentNode ) === lastNonemptyChild( ancestor.parentNode )
|
|
|
|
) {
|
|
|
|
ancestor = ancestor.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ancestor;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return null;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Given a comment, add a list item to its document's DOM tree, inside of which a reply to said
|
|
|
|
* comment can be added.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* The DOM tree is suitably rearranged to ensure correct indentation level of the reply (wrapper
|
|
|
|
* nodes are added, and other nodes may be moved around).
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {Object} comment Comment data returned by parser#groupThreads
|
|
|
|
* @return {HTMLElement}
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
function addListItem( comment ) {
|
|
|
|
var
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
curComment, curLevel, desiredLevel,
|
2020-04-28 19:20:23 +00:00
|
|
|
target, parent, wrapper, listType, itemType, list, item, newNode,
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
listTypeMap = {
|
|
|
|
li: 'ul',
|
|
|
|
dd: 'dl'
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// 1. Start at given comment
|
|
|
|
// 2. Skip past all comments with level greater than the given
|
|
|
|
// (or in other words, all replies, and replies to replies, and so on)
|
|
|
|
// 3. Add comment with level of the given comment plus 1
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
curComment = comment;
|
|
|
|
while ( curComment.replies.length ) {
|
|
|
|
curComment = curComment.replies[ curComment.replies.length - 1 ];
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
desiredLevel = comment.level + 1;
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
curLevel = curComment.level;
|
|
|
|
target = curComment.range.endContainer;
|
2020-03-02 18:50:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-02 21:39:18 +00:00
|
|
|
// Skip to the end of the "paragraph". This only looks at tag names and can be fooled by CSS, but
|
|
|
|
// avoiding that would be more difficult and slower.
|
|
|
|
while ( target.nextSibling && !ve.isBlockElement( target.nextSibling ) ) {
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
target = target.nextSibling;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-02 18:50:36 +00:00
|
|
|
// target is a text node or an inline element at the end of a "paragraph" (not necessarily paragraph node).
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
// First, we need to find a block-level parent that we can mess with.
|
|
|
|
// If we can't find a surrounding list item or paragraph (e.g. maybe we're inside a table cell
|
|
|
|
// or something), take the parent node and hope for the best.
|
2020-03-08 14:32:38 +00:00
|
|
|
parent = utils.closestElement( target, [ 'li', 'dd', 'p' ] ) || target.parentNode;
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
while ( target.parentNode !== parent ) {
|
|
|
|
target = target.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// parent is a list item or paragraph (hopefully)
|
|
|
|
// target is an inline node within it
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
if ( curLevel < desiredLevel ) {
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
// Insert more lists after the target to increase nesting.
|
2019-11-13 14:36:36 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-28 19:20:23 +00:00
|
|
|
// If the comment is fully covered by some wrapper element, insert replies outside that wrapper.
|
|
|
|
// This will often just be a paragraph node (<p>), but it can be a <div> or <table> that serves
|
|
|
|
// as some kind of a fancy frame, which are often used for barnstars and announcements.
|
|
|
|
if ( curLevel === 1 && ( wrapper = getFullyCoveredWrapper( curComment ) ) ) {
|
|
|
|
target = wrapper;
|
|
|
|
parent = target.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
// If we can't insert a list directly inside this element, insert after it.
|
2020-04-28 19:20:23 +00:00
|
|
|
// The wrapper check above handles most cases, but this special case is still needed for comments
|
|
|
|
// consisting of multiple paragraphs with no fancy frames.
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
// TODO Improve this check
|
2020-04-25 17:36:48 +00:00
|
|
|
if ( parent.tagName.toLowerCase() === 'p' || parent.tagName.toLowerCase() === 'pre' ) {
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
parent = parent.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
target = target.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Decide on tag names for lists and items
|
|
|
|
itemType = parent.tagName.toLowerCase();
|
|
|
|
itemType = listTypeMap[ itemType ] ? itemType : 'dd';
|
|
|
|
listType = listTypeMap[ itemType ];
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Insert required number of wrappers
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
while ( curLevel < desiredLevel ) {
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
list = target.ownerDocument.createElement( listType );
|
2020-02-24 21:58:51 +00:00
|
|
|
list.discussionToolsModified = 'new';
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
item = target.ownerDocument.createElement( itemType );
|
2020-02-24 21:58:51 +00:00
|
|
|
item.discussionToolsModified = 'new';
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
whitespaceParsoidHack( item );
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parent.insertBefore( list, target.nextSibling );
|
|
|
|
list.appendChild( item );
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
target = item;
|
|
|
|
parent = list;
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
curLevel++;
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
} else if ( curLevel >= desiredLevel ) {
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
// Split the ancestor nodes after the target to decrease nesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do {
|
|
|
|
// If target is the last child of its parent, no need to split it
|
|
|
|
if ( target.nextSibling ) {
|
|
|
|
// Create new identical node after the parent
|
|
|
|
newNode = parent.cloneNode( false );
|
2020-02-24 21:58:51 +00:00
|
|
|
parent.discussionToolsModified = 'split';
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
parent.parentNode.insertBefore( newNode, parent.nextSibling );
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Move nodes following target to the new node
|
|
|
|
while ( target.nextSibling ) {
|
|
|
|
newNode.appendChild( target.nextSibling );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
target = parent;
|
|
|
|
parent = parent.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Decrease nesting level if we escaped outside of a list
|
|
|
|
if ( listTypeMap[ target.tagName.toLowerCase() ] ) {
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
curLevel--;
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
} while ( curLevel >= desiredLevel );
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// parent is now a list, target is a list item
|
|
|
|
item = target.ownerDocument.createElement( target.tagName );
|
2020-02-24 21:58:51 +00:00
|
|
|
item.discussionToolsModified = 'new';
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
whitespaceParsoidHack( item );
|
|
|
|
parent.insertBefore( item, target.nextSibling );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return item;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-24 21:58:51 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Undo the effects of #addListItem, also removing or merging any affected parent nodes.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {HTMLElement} node
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2020-05-15 00:23:50 +00:00
|
|
|
function removeAddedListItem( node ) {
|
2020-02-24 21:58:51 +00:00
|
|
|
var nextNode;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while ( node && node.discussionToolsModified ) {
|
|
|
|
if ( node.discussionToolsModified === 'new' ) {
|
|
|
|
nextNode = node.previousSibling || node.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Remove this node
|
|
|
|
delete node.discussionToolsModified;
|
|
|
|
node.parentNode.removeChild( node );
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else if ( node.discussionToolsModified === 'split' ) {
|
|
|
|
// Children might be split too, if so, descend into them afterwards
|
|
|
|
if ( node.lastChild && node.lastChild.discussionToolsModified === 'split' ) {
|
|
|
|
node.discussionToolsModified = 'done';
|
|
|
|
nextNode = node.lastChild;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
delete node.discussionToolsModified;
|
|
|
|
nextNode = node.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Merge the following sibling node back into this one
|
|
|
|
while ( node.nextSibling.firstChild ) {
|
|
|
|
node.appendChild( node.nextSibling.firstChild );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
node.parentNode.removeChild( node.nextSibling );
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
nextNode = node.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
node = nextNode;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-27 16:23:27 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Unwrap a top level list, converting list item text to paragraphs
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Assumes that the list is the only child of it's parent.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {HTMLElement} list List element (dl/ol/ul)
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
function unwrapList( list ) {
|
|
|
|
var p,
|
|
|
|
doc = list.ownerDocument,
|
|
|
|
container = list.parentNode;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
container.removeChild( list );
|
|
|
|
while ( list.firstChild ) {
|
|
|
|
if ( list.firstChild.nodeType === Node.ELEMENT_NODE ) {
|
|
|
|
// Move <dd> contents to <p>
|
|
|
|
p = doc.createElement( 'p' );
|
|
|
|
while ( list.firstChild.firstChild ) {
|
|
|
|
// If contents is a block element, place outside the paragraph
|
|
|
|
// and start a new paragraph after
|
|
|
|
if ( ve.isBlockElement( list.firstChild.firstChild ) ) {
|
|
|
|
if ( p.firstChild ) {
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild( p );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild( list.firstChild.firstChild );
|
|
|
|
p = doc.createElement( 'p' );
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
p.appendChild( list.firstChild.firstChild );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if ( p.firstChild ) {
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild( p );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
list.removeChild( list.firstChild );
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
// Text node / comment node, probably empty
|
|
|
|
container.appendChild( list.firstChild );
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Add another list item after the given one.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @param {HTMLElement} previousItem
|
|
|
|
* @return {HTMLElement}
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
function addSiblingListItem( previousItem ) {
|
2020-05-11 15:47:04 +00:00
|
|
|
var listItem = previousItem.ownerDocument.createElement( previousItem.tagName.toLowerCase() );
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
whitespaceParsoidHack( listItem );
|
|
|
|
previousItem.parentNode.insertBefore( listItem, previousItem.nextSibling );
|
2019-11-05 14:13:18 +00:00
|
|
|
return listItem;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-15 21:35:50 +00:00
|
|
|
function createWikitextNode( doc, wt ) {
|
|
|
|
var span = doc.createElement( 'span' );
|
2019-11-05 14:13:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
span.setAttribute( 'typeof', 'mw:Transclusion' );
|
|
|
|
span.setAttribute( 'data-mw', JSON.stringify( { parts: [ wt ] } ) );
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return span;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
module.exports = {
|
2020-03-02 18:50:36 +00:00
|
|
|
addReplyLink: addReplyLink,
|
2019-11-05 14:13:18 +00:00
|
|
|
addListItem: addListItem,
|
2020-05-15 00:23:50 +00:00
|
|
|
removeAddedListItem: removeAddedListItem,
|
Pick reply insertion point based on parser tree, not DOM tree
I don't like that I had to special-case `<p>` tags (top-level
comments) in this code. I feel like it should be possible to handle
top-level comments and replies in a generic way, but I couldn't find
a way to do it that actually worked.
Notes about changes to the behavior, based on the test cases:
* Given a top-level comment A, if there was a "list gap" in the
replies to it: previously new replies would be incorrectly added at
the location of the gap; now they are added after the last reply.
(T242822)
Example: "pl", comment at "08:23, 29 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A and a reply to it B that skips an
indentation level: previously new replies to A would be added with
the same indentation level as B; now they are added with the
indentation level of A plus one. (The old behavior wasn't a bug, and
this is an accidental effect of other changes, but it seems okay.)
Example: "pl", comment at "03:22, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
and reply at "09:43, 30 wrz 2018 (CEST)"
* Given a top-level comment A, a reply to it B, and a following
top-level comment C that starts at the same indentation level as B:
previously new replies to A would be incorrectly added in the middle
of the comment C, due to the DOM list structure; now they are added
before C. (T241391)
(It seems that comment C was supposed to be a multi-line reply that
was wrongly indented. Unfortunately we have no way to distinguish
this case from a top-level multi-line comment that just happens to
start with a bullet list.)
Example: "pl", comments at "03:36, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)",
"08:35, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)", "17:14, 24 paź 2018 (CEST)"
* In the "en" example, there are some other changes where funnily
nested tags result in slightly different results with the new code.
They don't look important.
* In rare cases, we must split an existing list to add a reply in the
right place. (Basically add `</ul>` before the reply and `<ul>`
after, but it's a bit awkward in DOM terms.)
Example: split-list.html, comment "aaa"; also split-list2.html
(which is the result of saving the previous reply), comment "aaa"
* The modifier can no longer generate DOM that is invalid HTML, fixing
a FIXME in modifier.test.js (or at least, it doesn't happen in these
test cases any more).
Bug: T241391
Bug: T242822
Change-Id: I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec
2020-01-15 06:09:13 +00:00
|
|
|
addSiblingListItem: addSiblingListItem,
|
2020-04-27 16:23:27 +00:00
|
|
|
unwrapList: unwrapList,
|
2019-11-05 14:13:18 +00:00
|
|
|
createWikitextNode: createWikitextNode
|
|
|
|
};
|