When a comment almost exactly matches the range of an
accidental complex transclusion consisting only of
pages from the 'Template' namespace and wikitext fragments,
I think we can safely allow replying to the comment.
Even if this turns out to be incorrect in some cases,
the failure will be more graceful after the changes in T313100:
instead of potentially duplicating contents from a template,
the worst case now is that the reply will appear in the wrong
place (at the end of the transclusion).
Bug: T313093
Change-Id: Ie8da09d74a652d893fd8c3e2435ef6cb70fad64a
We wrap a `<div>` tag around the `<h2>`, and move some elements there.
The markup is inspired by and compatible with my proposal for T13555.
The "ext-discussiontools-init-section" class is moved to the `<div>`.
A small patch is needed in MobileFrontend to preserve the section
collapsing functionality: I11bff21e81046898ca63f3f432797129fa70ad88.
The following elements are now outside of `<h2>`:
* Metadata bar
* Subscribe button
* Ellipsis menu (only shown on mobile)
The following elements are sadly still inside of `<h2>`:
* Subscribe links (only shown on desktop)
* Section edit links from MediaWiki core
Trying to move them mucks up the CSS too much. I hope we can resolve
this later as a part of the work on T13555.
Depends-On: I11bff21e81046898ca63f3f432797129fa70ad88
Bug: T314714
Change-Id: I0bbdcfa02c334858737855349d7a35746de1d8f2
Use revision IDs to break the tie, consistently with MediaWiki (see
RevisionStore::getRelativeRevision) instead of assuming that the
revision we're processing now is somehow both older *and* newer than
the other one (the mind boggles how that ever made sense to me).
Change-Id: I9f1a07124301a36be68578d908353b72f0442c00
isFeatureEnabledForOutput already checks if the mobile flag is enabled,
but it also respects the dtenable=1 override.
Change-Id: I95035281bf301b22c1a9ef4c06ec54cdd0cbc85c
We originally used 'templates' because it seemed like an obvious
choice for HTML files, and because 'packageFiles' requires extra code
to include anything that isn't a .js or .json file.
However, the templates are expected to be HTML fragments rather than
whole documents, and they are parsed in a particular way that takes a
lot of code to clean up (which we needed to do, because we use the
same test files for testing PHP code).
I tried doing it in the 'packageFiles' way, and the extra code doesn't
seem that bad in comparison after all. Moreover, the 'templates'
mechanism (when used the intended way) feels vaguely deprecated in
favor of Vue.js, and I'd rather move away from it.
This makes the tests faster too (probably mostly thanks to the removal
of the clean up code) – on my machine they go from 1800ms to 1500ms.
(Simplify linearWalk tests, as we no longer need to do weird things
with document fragments to get consistent outputs in PHP and JS.)
Change-Id: I39f9b994ce5636d70fea2e935a7c87c7d56dcb26
