This check makes sure the user doesn't loose work when clicking
the back button. I would like to argue that neither of these
values is valuable enough to block the user with a confirmation
dialog:
* Literally nothing is lost when the input is empty.
* The auto-value is only temporarily lost, but will
automatically be restored when the user decides to add the
template back. The input field is pre-filled with this value.
* The default value doesn't need to be manually entered. It will
show up anyway when the parameter is missing.
There is a rare edge-case, but it is not really relevant in this
situation. Some templates allow to override a default value with
the empty string. This will be considered irrelevant by this
code. However, this was already happening before and doesn't
change with this patch.
The only edge-case where this patch makes a difference is if a
parameter is marked as required or suggested, is documented to
have a default value, _and_ the template allows to override it
with an empty string. But this combination is rather crazy, if
not bogus, and not worth considering here, I believe.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: Ib176a82844335c3d4dd5b720d335ec28245e1637
This is really only about the methods name, but doesn't change
any behavior.
I realized we work with several different definitions of what
"empty" means. There are at least two significant definitions:
1. When a parameter's value is the empty string or identical
to the default value, the behavior of the template is the same.
It will use the default value just as if the user entered it.
The auto-value is a meaningful value in this scenario and can't
be considered equal to the empty string.
2. The context here is when the user presses the back button.
This will destroy all user input. But an auto-value is not user
input. It will appear again when the user realizes they made a
mistake. Nothing is lost.
Personally, I would not use the word "empty" to describe this
concept. Things like "containsUserProvidedValue",
"isCustomValue", "isMeaningfulValue", … come to mind. These are
all still a big vague. A "user provided" value can be identical
to the default or auto-value. "Custom" how? I went for
"containsValuableData" for now.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I2912a35556795c867a6b2396cbad291e947f0ed6
This method already exists in the ve.dm.MWTransclusionPartModel
base class where it does the exact same.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I19d5914ed9b4b435c83ea4d64019bc46ce1ce8fd
This reverts commit 0d4dee341b.
Reason for revert: This made it entirely impossible to add a
deprecated parameter, even if done intentionally. Needs more tests.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I7389bad0845cd1ce78f9d7ef71592cb1ce2a063e
Notably:
* Don't require the model in the new sidebar via dependency
injection, but connect the event handlers later. This is
relevant because we currently create the new sidebar in the
wrong spot. Removing the hard dependency allows us to split
the code and utilize initialize() and getSetupProcess()
correctly. This will be done in a following patch.
* The change event now includes the new position. This makes
it very easy to add this missing feature to the new sidebar.
Also:
* Stop triggering change events when nothing changed. These
events are expensive. They bubble all the way up to the
TransclusionModel, and to all linked
onTransclusionModelChange() handlers.
* Update event documentation to make this more visible.
Bug: T274544
Change-Id: Iafe29f18a6fed14d9c3124c9756aa840886afbbc
Notably:
* Include parameter aliases, labels and descriptions in the
search.
* Don't use a possibly outdated search index, but live data.
* Clear filter when a new checkbox is added.
Bug: T272481
Change-Id: Ie90a803af6178a8bb6de370a0f8e079800d9f8a2
In detail:
* Allow clicks on all elements in the new sidebar. This should
focus the corresponding element on the right.
* Make all elements in the new sidebar tabbable.
* Fix MWTransclusionOutlineTemplateWidget.createCheckbox() to
not need a temporary param object any more.
* Rewrite more code in MWTransclusionOutlineTemplateWidget to
be shorter and easier to read.
* Fix MWTemplateModel.addParameter() to not do way to much
stuff when a parameter already exists.
* Update code documentation.
* Use more specific, less ambiguous variable and method names.
Bug: T274544
Change-Id: Iaf6f7d1b0f7bf0e9b03eb86d01f3eceadece6fe4
Reasoning:
* format=json must be the default. Nothing else makes sense in
the context of this code. This should not be a surprise.
* formatversion=2 is only a default when the custom
getContentApi() is used, but not when mw.Api is used. One
might argue that it's safer to always specify formatversion=2.
However, this is not done in other places in this codebase.
It should never be done or always.
* I find it confusing when the action=… is missing. Let's not
rely on this default.
Change-Id: I6ca29f76bffc0849103c5bcff4aaf28fcaaa4c52
Separation of concerns:
* The template model knows which parameters are currently used,
but doesn't know what's documented.
* The spec knows what's documented, but doesn't know what's
currently used.
Change-Id: I97cac00d6775a17a07059d0e8a7a116adc6080b3
For example, checking if a parameter is required works just fine
for unknown parameters. They are never required. Since I16708b0
we don't need to guard the spec related methods any more.
Change-Id: Id90e4cb810dc9faca3b26f122a534f276ee31709
Before the method fetchRequestAlways() was doing two entirely
different things. Note how the two function arguments are
split now. Each method uses only one of them.
Change-Id: I592a1f29fd9c677a0ff18115cccda36950172001
These methods are special in so far that they create *minimal*
wikitext where optional whitespace is not preserved. I tried
to rename the methods to reflect this, but could not find a
caller. What's used instead are the .serialize() methods.
Bug: T284895
Change-Id: Iedaa5b7efa9675151cc0553854d8aef3f9a46cbb
A lot of the checks are redundant. The first check still is
redundant because the later two cover everything as well. But
I left it for performance reasons.
Additionally:
* There was no test for the method.
* This patch also updates a few pieces of documentation in the
same class.
Change-Id: I10f2944a844cc070bdc08dec6719929b383e34fa
If a known parameter is present using one of it's aliases, then
only the aliased name should be shown to the user. This patch,
therefore, resolves the issue of the same parameter being added
to the sidebar twice.
When adding a parameter that is aliased, it will receive the same
position as the non-aliased parameter it is replacing.
Bug: T274545
Change-Id: If4e58c941fd0f0e690d3603935f5a5d3f9938163
This also removes a few lines of text that don't explain
anything that would not be obvious from the code or @return
tag anyway.
Change-Id: I2f8f02dd61c50d9990d72c0e8ea79d679c9b11f2
This fixes a minor issue in the spec class. In the first step,
parameters from the template are added to the list of known
parameters. Later, aliases are resolved. The original behavior
was that such a parameter moved to the end of the list. This
is rather unexpected.
This dosn't have much of an impact. The pretty much only place
where the parameter order from the spec can be seen is in the
parameter search widget. Still I believe it's worth fixing.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: I455818451811e92bba3e9320c2d41e1db8d563f2
I don't want this code to crash when the TemplateData API
returns an unexpected result.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: I237cbfbb85892a53a08d9e7e34cf4974775d627a
This is just not necessary. It removes a level of indirection
that possibly makes it harder to understand the code. It makes
it easier to possibly get rid of unused methods.
Change-Id: Iaf8b213a5e1ae64a24b5bcdf2a0b200d5d3cbf46
This doesn't "extend". It was never used like this. What it
actually does is to link between a (cached) TemplateData blob
and the spec class that want's to use it.
Is this the best possible name?
* fillFromTemplateData( … )?
* propagateTemplateDocumentation( … )?
* readDocumentationFrom( templateData )?
* …?
Do we want to rename the "spec" class as well?
* MWTemplateDocumentation?
* MWTemplateMetadata?
* MWTemplateDataAccessor?
* …?
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: I6c52ef42d411c2f47fc0080768d36ebda4dd2a55
Just store the JSON blob from the TemplateData API as is.
This comes with a bunch of nice consequences:
* Less code.
* Less class properties that don't do anything but copy what's
in the TemplateData blob.
* Easier to understand what's going on. The `this.templateData`
property is now a reference to the *actual* TemplateData
documentation.
* No need to cache the documentedParamOrder. Just do it when
needed.
This also removes an unused feature from the `extend()` method
that didn't made sense anyway. Before it was possible to merge
conflicting documentations. But this is not only unused, it's
impossible to have multiple documentations for the same
template.
The method acts as a straight setter now. The next patch will
rename it accordingly.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: I3ffc202577e9a20fc7491234601ccd981113f866
Instead of faking entries in this.params, let's use a separate
tiny data structure to keep track of parameters we have seen so
far, and in which order.
This finally allows to easily distinguish between documented and
undocumented parameters.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: Idf62b0661178a3bbef7e817edf016dbd572d415b
The so called "spec" class keeps track of parameters that have
been used before, no matter if documented via TemplateData or
not. Removed parameters are still "known" (i.e. have been seen
before).
This feature allows to easily find previously used parameters
names when an undocumented parameter was removed and the user
tries to add it again.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: Ia1555eea87cd99e7a3f386f4279ec5a80fb98a79
These tags don't do much, if anything. But they provide a hint
in which scope a method might be used.
Bug: T284895
Change-Id: I0b4bdd416ee89d26961c4ded4d8bbace8c57da76
In I04b8a14fbec7be5a1c4defabf92e94f694c1e638 we sepearted params from
aliases. There we missed that re-filling the parameters from the
template could re-add the aliases.
Bug: T285483
Bug: T285843
Change-Id: I1928b443a5f708bc8c57efa5ad0a86b5915b159c
While the term "canonical" is not wrong, I find it still
somewhat ambiguous.
1. "Canonical" could mean different things. E.g. is the order
of parameters as they appear in the article's wikitext the
"canonical" one? It's possible to argue like this, esp. if a
template doesn't have TemplateData documentation. In this case
the only order known is the one from the wikitext.
2. "Canonical" sounds like the parameters must be reordered.
But this should never happen. Not having dirty diffs is more
important than having the parameters in a specific order.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: I23658d37fea50b727667677ac6a49066673b2135
