Ignore the horizontal position of the comments' bounding boxes entirely.
It can be crazy because of de-indentation in the middle of the comment,
and even just text formatting with padding/margins (e.g. `<code>`) can
make it look weird. Just draw the rulers based on detected indentation.
Change-Id: Id4e5edf076d44bdedfb45958260d797daea29ed1
Native Range objects are automatically updated when the DOM elements
they refer to are affected (e.g. detached from the DOM, or their offset
changes because of siblings being added/removed).
This seemed harmless or maybe even slightly useful, but it turns out
it conflicts with VisualEditor, which has to wrap the entire page in a
new DOM node when it opens (and unwrap it when it closes), effectively
temporarily detaching it from the DOM, which destroys all our ranges.
Just use a plain object that stores the same data as a Range. And when
we need to use Range's API, we can simply construct a temporary one.
Bug: T241861
Change-Id: Iee64aa3d667877265ef8a59293c202e6478d7fb6
By default, DiscussionTools loads on all talk pages when the extension
is installed. This can now be disabled by setting the configuration
option `$wgDiscussionToolsEnable=false`.
To test DiscussionTools, one can now use the query parameter
`?dtenable=1`, which allows it to be loaded on any wikitext page
(overriding the config option).
Bug: T243621
Change-Id: I3d5a9cc9a4183fb6951f05c557b1d42735a9df7c
This sets up the tags:
* discussiontools
* discussiontools-reply
* discussiontools-edit (not yet implemented)
* discussiontools-newsection (not yet implemented)
The tags are flagged as user-addable, because otherwise they can't be
passed through to the VE API (at least, not without editing it so that
it explicitly knows about them, which seems like a strange
interdependency). It's assumed that letting users who know about the
tags add them to random changes via action=editchangetags would be
(a) the pettiest and most inconsequential vandalism possible, and
(b) unlikely to happen.
This relies upon I2c1d0f8d69bc03e5c1877c790247e165f160e966 in
VisualEditor to not also tag the edits with `visualeditor`.
Bug: T242184
Change-Id: I4e5e26afdd52279df242e1912f073b415b812c3b
The loop in parser.js assumed that there was always a heading before
any comments (not counting the page title, only section headings).
Bug: T243869
Change-Id: I3a0bb06716e75d4a17e25c40748673a071ee5f30
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
Even when you have multiple signatures by multiple users in one
paragraph (or list item), it's still basically a single comment.
We don't want to offer multiple buttons to reply to it.
The changed parser test cases are illustrative:
* All affected comments in the "pl" example are comments with a
"post-scriptum", which is now more intuitively treated as part of
the main comment.
* The first comment in the "en" example would probably have been
better if it wasn't merged, but a weird use of the outdent template
causes us to not be able to distinguish that the two parts of the
comment display on separate lines.
* The last comment in the "en" example (isn't that neat?) was previously
incorrectly treated as two comments, because there's a timestamp in
the middle of it (the user is referring to another comment).
* Remaining affected comments in the "en" example are also comments
with a "post-scriptum" and their treatment is clearly better now.
It also accidentally fixes some problems with modifier tests (but not
all), where previously <dl> nodes would be inserted in the middle of
<p> nodes, to reply to the comments which are now merged.
Bug: T240640
Change-Id: I0f2d9238aff75d78286250affd323cd145661a11
Document the current behavior of the modifier (which inserts the
replies into the DOM tree), so that we can more easily see the effect
of changes in I2a70db01e9a8916c5636bc59ea8490166966d5ec.
Basically, add a reply to every comment, and dump the resulting HTML,
comparing it to previously generated expected HTML (which can be
checked visually). Have a look at the new HTML files.
Notably, the very first section in the "pl" example demonstrates a
case of wrong reply location due to list gap :) (T242822).
Change-Id: I4aed0f0b112f53d98e3fe1da4d40db8687c7e537
Sepatate #teardown and #tryTeardown methods to make it
obvious what they do. Have <escape> call #tryTeardown
like the cancel button.
Change-Id: Ica0f3295bfee378bcd15d0b6a3ccea3c7917ad9b
This avoids that the script is executed without the extension is
installed.
This avoids than an error when class is missing
Change-Id: I064d2be5dbaa3b43c8134e19694511398decba88
Add .phpcs.xml to run codesniffer against the extension.
The entry in composer.json is already there
Change-Id: If9de7e9b1b9439dc4d5fa2ba521883d13deaa739
* stylelint-config-wikimedia: 0.7.0 → 0.8.0
* grunt-stylelint: 0.12.0 → 0.13.0
Additional changes:
* And updating CoC link to use Special:MyLanguage (T202047).
* Set `private: true` in package.json.
* Set `root: true` in .eslintrc.json (T206485).
* Added .eslintcache to .gitignore.
* Removing manual reportUnusedDisableDirectives for eslint.
Change-Id: I18a1f384d62d71ed40be67f20000a03cb741a7d0
* Add config option $wgDiscussionToolsUseVisualEditor (default false).
* Add new modules ext.discussionTools.ReplyWidgetPlain and ...ReplyWidgetVisual,
replacing ...ReplyWidget. Load only one of them depending on the config.
TODO:
* Also add the visual mode of VisualEditor, this only uses NWE now.
There is already code to support saving from it, but no mode
switcher tool
Co-Authored-By: Ed Sanders <esanders@wikimedia.org>
Co-Authored-By: Bartosz Dziewoński <matma.rex@gmail.com>
Change-Id: I9b6db865d51baf400fb715dc7aa68ccd8cdd4905
I did this wrong in a6147ffac8, the
'dt-init-done' class was never cleared. Put it on another element.
Bug: T241861
Change-Id: I136bd9c12bcc80cff01f5d26a8a53524f0c533c6
Unfortunately mw.Api#parse doesn't provide us with that part of the
response, so we have to manually construct the parameters.
Bug: T241193
Change-Id: Ie91d5ebc2ef483a69524b838dd3cb852e7c85cd2
