If the revision from which we generated the notification has been
deleted, we shouldn't include the content snippet, nor the direct link
to the comment (because the fragment ID is generated from the content).
This matches how Echo handles mention notifications.
Change-Id: Ica939f3a4efd39d0c295511d58280d3f9d584129
As it happens, most of Echo does not actually parse this message,
but it is for some reason parsed in HTML email notifications.
Change-Id: I414cd242d9bcc4d8b5a1c2a2a71be9e5f00ea8be
We don't display [subscribe] buttons on your user talk page,
but the API still allows those subscriptions.
Use the same approach as for mentions to ensure this doesn't cause
duplicate notifications.
Remove some code in SubscribedNewCommentPresentationModel,
now guaranteed to be unused.
Change-Id: I99a276a48d8562552ed2c54cc0323e8e428845fd
Previously, our highlights were placed in a node at the end of
the page, and positioned absolutely in relation to the whole
page. Now we insert the highlight in the DOM near the comment,
and position it in relation to that.
This way it remains positioned correctly when the page shifts
(e.g. collapsing the table of contents), and disappears when
the page content is hidden (e.g. opening visual editor).
Bug: T281471
Change-Id: I60afc4b94b2e23376105638542563e595a1811d9
The modifier crashes if endContainer is a <p>/<dd>/<li> node, and
it often is if we try to exclude the end marker from the range.
It doesn't matter for T281471, so let's just leave it that way.
(This is also more similar to the range produced by our parser.)
Follow-up to c4ba8e921a. No idea how
I missed this when testing that patch.
Also, improve comments.
Bug: T281471
Change-Id: If6aba34acf29c37d06fb0ca92547f78b58695597
This produces nicer results when we call Range#getBoundingClientRect
on them later, when drawing comment highlights (using Firefox).
I'm not sure how this will affect everything in modifier, but it
doesn't seem to be causing issues. If it does cause trouble, then we
should instead adjust the range this way in controller#highlight.
Bug: T281471
Change-Id: I6f204b858990023f42f564cca7a2d24d322f872e
Otherwise, the global context is used (RequestContext::getMain()),
which is undesirable when you're building a rubegoldbergian
contraption and we're already inside an internal action API request
with a fake context.
Change-Id: I01daf8dc70b5751bc1e157fe598988cd5d3219e5
Per Manuel Arostegui in T263817#7033384. The limit is 5000.
(I picked it arbitrarily, there's no real rationale for it.)
Also log a warning when any user reaches half of the limit,
so that we might make a decision about changing this mechanism
before it starts affecting users. Maybe at that time we'll
have data to show that it's safe to remove the limit.
Bug: T263817
Change-Id: I18a8ee0ad7383759229c5721d5253fb591457d4d
