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
* 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
* Query parameters for the API must be in lowercase.
* Also, 'starttimestamp' was misspelled.
Bug: T240643
Change-Id: I6497770dfc3a9512af063b846c3f73aa5603b637
Method can be used by preview logic later. Whitespace trimming
avoids sig ending up on newline in a <pre>.
Change-Id: If6f06f17395af0c6645082c1b9493be87422c059
The packageFiles system makes it easier to export site config data
from PHP to JS, which we need a lot of, but it's awkward when mixing
it with defining and accessing classes via a namespace like mw.dt.
The only thing remaining in mw.dt is mw.dt.pageThreads, which is
described to be "for debugging", so we should keep it easy to type.
Also we still use the namespace for documenting classes.
Everything else can be reached by require()'ing a ResourceLoader
module, for example instead of `mw.dt.ui.ReplyWidget`
you'd do `require( 'ext.discussionTools.ReplyWidget' )`.
(When debugging from browser console, use `mw.loader.require` instead.)
Change-Id: I6496abcf58c21658d6fd0f3fc1db1f7380a89df7
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
Otherwise the rest of the page may shift if hiding the link changes
line-wrapping. It felt super confusing when it happened to me while
I was testing an unrelated thing.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F31254175
Change-Id: I53aecdbf3bfba579b48875532d251de0f1c81d6c
