I moved some code around and found that quite a lot of code wants to
know:
* Is the length of this transclusion exactly 1?
* I need that 1st part.
There is more that can potentially moved from the dialog to the model.
But I don't want to make this patch to big.
Bug: T292371
Change-Id: Ia94ed0450d04dd97c4c41f5bf7c266f9a534e821
The TemplateData extension is not limited to the Template: namespace.
And even if pages outside of the Template: namespace typically don't
have TemplateData information, the API is still able to automatically
extract parameter information from every page.
Or:
It's rare that a page outside of the Template: namespace is used as
a template. But if it is, this is not a mistake. The code here in
VisualEditor should not try to be "more clever" than the user is. If
this is what the user want's to do, let's not block them.
Bug: T291883
Change-Id: Iaf3fd5530b74fab7cedfc85ce04c8c40632df11f
The previous patch Id314ee8 was incomplete. The event changed.
The id in the event is not guaranteed to be a top-level partId any
more, but can be a template parameter's id.
Note: "Parameter id" and "pageName" is the same. The fact that
these ids match is how the left and the right side of the dialog
communicate.
Bug: T289043
Bug: T291151
Change-Id: I391f0f8edb96398fd33a2e0b01003013c52776da
This patch improves the error handling for when a user tries to add
a parameter which is either an alias of a existing parameter, the
primary name of a existing aliased parameter, or a name/alias of an
existing parameter which is shown with an override label.
The error message was modified to always refer to the conflicting
parameter using the same name that is has in the sidebar.
Example: A parameter named "Parameter B" is already present in the
sidebar under its alias "B". When a user tries to add "Parameter B",
the new error message will inform the user that the parameter they
are trying to add already exists as "B".
Bug: T285869
Change-Id: I762b72b6cf14eb8ff5fcef63b4dcb70e297050de
I tried to review all of them. Some of the changes I did:
* Make sure the `config` parameter is not marked as optional
when it is not.
* Make sure default values are mentioned.
* List individual `@cfg` options when it makes sense.
Note I don't list all options a class could accept (e.g. via all
its parent classes and mixins). That's too much. Instead I checked
how a class is actually used and list only these options.
Even then I don't list everything, e.g. unspecific options
like "classes" that can be used pretty much everywhere.
Change-Id: Idf4fbe1dc3608ace277df9e385f2f140df3a2f50
We want to assert that value is true-ish, and that it doesn't equal a
default or auto string.
Bug: T290554
Change-Id: I454dda8d0085a8d3898a0d5b1a3ecc6dd7c2c9e4
The code in .cacheTemplateDataApiResponse() where the `specCache`
is filled skips missing pages. .setTemplateData() is never called.
While we could – in theory – check the `missing` flag (as done in
patchset 1), this flag never makes it to the spec.
Rather simple solution: Mark everything as undocumented, as long
as .setTemplateData() is not called.
This affects only missing pages. .setTemplateData() is called in
all other situations.
Bug: T272487
Bug: T276574
Bug: T290136
Change-Id: I7045e84f2f2ba5aa4591c94ea495b0249e6c40d6
Method names have been changed in I8fa47ed, assuming these are
private. It looks like some hacks exist out there. Let's make
these peoples life easier.
Change-Id: I63c80761fe06e2f3a4bb104fe3e8c17d1c7faa02
There are 2 situations:
1. Either the template name is used in a [[…]] link. In this case
we must provide the namespace. MWTemplateModel.getTitle() does
this. However, it's not a mw.Title object and therefor not really
guaranteed to be a valid title. This is fine. The worst thing
that can happen is that the link points to an error message.
But this should be entirely unreachable anyway.
2. Some messages want to display the name of the template.
Ideally without the namespace. That's what
MWTemplateSpecModel.getLabel() is for. Again this is not
guaranteed to be a valid mw.Title. But it doesn't need to. It's
only used as a label.
Change-Id: I03d0481201620a2f5c444ee32b656bcaade98aac
It appears like it's currently not possible to reach this code
with an invalid template name like `{{foo}}`. But this is not
guaranteed.
The purpose of this code is to call the TemplateData API. This is
pointless when a title is invalid. We know a page with this name
can't exist. So we skip it.
But that's all this code cares about. It should not crash. Nor
does it need to report this situation.
This is related to the discussion in Ic364e75.
Change-Id: If9bacc91b1c7bb110b33bfd395e1cbdf538e6c22
This is just the smallest possible boilerplate to get the first
trivial test running. More test cases will be added in the
following patches.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I3a4e49a7b9761db00b211e933386bad71d4f0942
Names like "fetch" or "resolve" are heavily ambiguous and
continue to confuse me. I hope these new names reflect better
what's going on.
Bug: T288827
Depends-On: I587a203a9370e4742f87586b4f1867b37459c375
Change-Id: I8fa47ed313e7d7b2c114a5638a67c4f3c8b830f1
This is what actually happens:
* We call `addParameter()`.
* This triggers an `add` event.
* This calls an `MWTemplateDialog.onAddParameter` event handler.
* This code doesn't check if a parameter already exists (because
it shouldn't). It detroys the page in the content pane on the
right and recreates it from scratch.
The only reason we do this is to focus the input field on the
right. This patch introduces a dedicated event to do this.
Bug: T288827
Change-Id: I47effe05427cfabfcf534920edee79521eaa033f
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
