They are not generated by MediaWiki, but they often appear when users
sign others' unsigned comments by copy-pasting the timestamp from the
history page.
Add test config data for nlwiki, exported by running this in the
browser console:
copy(
JSON.stringify( { wgArticlePath, wgNamespaceIds, wgFormattedNamespaces }, null, 2 ) + '\n' +
JSON.stringify( mw.loader.moduleRegistry['ext.discussionTools.parser'].packageExports['data.json'], null, 2 )
);
Bug: T245784
Change-Id: Icbcdc5a028e9ce2cb09173f87769e525ec3082fc
I think directories like this make more sense for adding more test cases.
Depends-On: I9153851fe162c012967fda00d3e1f81964a8dce9
Change-Id: Ibc72b747a75c72643c1fc04eae49bd15656e8104
Consequences of this are visible in the test cases:
* (en) Tech News posts are not detected.
Examples: "21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)", "21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)"
* (en) Comments by users who customize the timestamp are not detected.
Examples: "10:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)", "21:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)"
* (en) Comments with signatures missing a username are not detected.
This sometimes happens if a comment is accidentally signed with
'~~~~~' (five tildes), which only inserts the timestamp.
Examples: "17:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)", "10:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)"
* (pl) A lone timestamp at the beginning of a thread is not detected.
It's not part of a post, it was added to aid automatic archiving.
Example: "21:03, 18 paź 2018 (CET)"
Bug: T245692
Change-Id: I0767bb239a1800f2e538917b5995fc4f0fa4d043
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
Possible use cases:
* Matching comments between PHP and Parsoid HTML [implemented here]
* Finding the same comment in a different revision of a page
(e.g. while resolving an edit conflict, or to allow resuming
composition of autosaved comments) [implemented for highlighting
user's own posted comment only]
* Permanent links to comments [future]
The reasoning for this form of ID is:
* _Timestamp_ by itself is a nearly unique identifier, so it's a good
thing to start with
* Users may post multiple comments in one edit (or in many edits in
one minute), so we need the _sequential number_ to distinguish them
* _Username_ is probably not required, but it may reduce the need
for sequential numbers, and will help with human-readability if we
add permanent links
The ID remains stable when a new comment is added anywhere by anyone
(excepts comments within the same minute by the same user), or when a
section is renamed.
It's not always stable when a comment is moved or when an entire
section is moved or deleted (archived), but you can't have everything.
Change-Id: Idaae6427d659d12b82e37f1791bd03833632c7c0
(And rebuild them using this method, the properties are in different
order, it's actually nice for readability to have 'replies' last)
Change-Id: Ib586e1081fa36cb9125db1b0b1d41f092350641c
Tests that handle a specific case and describe what they are testing
would be nice… but tests that just document the current status to
avoid regressions are also okay and easier to add.
Change-Id: I0b3530ae0e77de70932aaf623f5290d1876699a0
