When we encounter a node that doesn't represent comment contents, e.g.:
* a [reply] link we inserted (T297034#7641334)
* an {{outdent}} template (see changed test case)
…we should ignore it together with its descendants (like in
Parser#nextInterestingLeafNode), instead of processing descendants
and possibly detecting comment contents in them.
Follow-up to 8de940b587,
72b9c2c6f5.
Bug: T297034
Change-Id: Ib2fa40c5fa389572b0e88ef558728fa06e3621b0
Previously: 569db3603c (2020-06).
Unfortunately we've found cases where the previous implementation
doesn't work correctly, resulting in comments being added to the wrong
pages or page corruption.
Bug: T289873
Bug: T298051
Change-Id: Id867b3005ebc46906d6df852a525fcaec9e6b19b
Now it detect signatures generated by en.wp's {{Undated}} template,
and signatures of people who do weird stuff to the timestamps.
Bug: T275938
Change-Id: I27b07f6786ca5433a3c02a5fe68e4716d41401bb
Sequential numbers aren't great because they change when an earlier
comment is archived. Parent comment/heading IDs should change less
often.
This also makes much more sense for disambiguating subsections,
e.g. a dozen identical ===Votes=== sections for a dozen proposals.
Bug: T264478
Change-Id: I466454984fd919ebef35f2b37ddb5d86dc842996
Previously, only comments could have IDs, because we only needed IDs
for replying. But we might also use them for notifications soon.
Bug: T264478
Change-Id: I1bcad02bf17ab54bc5028a959543c10f0430836b
