Changes to the use statements done automatically via script
Addition of missing use statement done manually
Change-Id: I3d7a1ffe167b69d3f4ce51d0c248c758e1cdd70c
UpdateQueryBuilder does not return a value,
removed the return value from the functions as well,
deprecated since 1.33
Change-Id: I3b934a5e6d5a53c07ec5233da00d9f53ba7bae92
Deprecated in T342301 in v1.41. This is now tracked
automatically. The variable can be safely deleted.
Change-Id: I3864ee85e8b0ff74385eee88018a37f61927f5ef
Changes to the use statements done automatically via script
Addition of missing use statements done manually
Change-Id: Iad87245bf8082193be72f7e482f29e9f1bad11fc
Notably: any() is the default anyway. It doesn't really make the
tests more specific or better readable when we repeat it all the
time.
Change-Id: I56d201bfce454587b00015b7208f313dd8ed9624
Replaced WikiPage::newFromID with newFromTitle,
because a Title object exists and could be reused
Bug: T297688
Change-Id: Ide30f259477ed8e0b48df31f5a23cafeb38d7316
::doUserEditContent() is available since 1.36 as a replacement
for ::doEditContent(), which has been deprecated. Extension
already requires MediaWiki 1.37+, so the method is always
available.
Bug: T255507
Change-Id: Iee5de356dbccd453a3083e0a58859b4cd83a946b
assertEquals() does not compare the type. It can not only be a float,
it can even be a string. E.g. 9 and '9' are considered equal.
Worst case scenarios are:
* 0 is considered equal to any "falsy" value, including the empty
string.
* 1 is considered equal to true.
assertSame() does not have any of these confusing edge-cases.
Change-Id: Ib6af0fefbbd8856adcf27844bb8ddd8e33ed3f9d
Not all tools require these to be absolute, full qualified class
names. But some do. This does make the code more compatible with all
kinds of tools.
Change-Id: Ie7f9d9469b7a48b2fe908d3428fca9ec0120f855
The codebase already used the …::class feature in many places. So this
is more for consistency than anything. The …::class feature makes it
much easier to do refactoring in the future.
Note this patch is exclusively touching tests. That should make it
relatively easy to review this. As long as the CI is fine with it, it
should be ok. Right? ;-)
Change-Id: I4d2adee76b4adbc83b2061161fd4e863ba833fcb
