Before the (intentional) design decision was to not do anything special
when the same parameter is used multiple times (via aliases). Garbage
in, garbage out. Only the first usage of the parameter would work as
intended. The rest was ignored and subsequently removed from the
wikitext.
New design decision: Track and display duplicates as they appear in the
wikitext.
Notes:
* It's not possible to create such a situation in VE. Do this via
wikitext.
* Labels will be made distinguishable via T309198.
* Possible warning messages will be added later.
* The behavior when unchecking a duplicate will be specified later.
Bug: T309198
Bug: T310248
Change-Id: I6011344638cdad8529d8f57513ef51b5237eb878
The previous comment was true, but we forgot another edge-case. The
same parameter can appear multiple times. The old code tried to
delete it 2 times, which deleted something else.
Note that the behavior for duplicates is larely unspecified. We
will work on this soon. This is only a first quick step to fix this
specific bug.
Bug: T309203
Change-Id: If0afb2c19626c3d9db0d109d6559ae74698ed378
Such comments don't add any new information. The method signature
alone already tells the full story.
We did this already to a lot of the template related code we touched.
This is just a bit of cleanup to make it consistent.
Change-Id: I932b620910924a16dc0d31d6c8a3ab11818316fe
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
This reflects much better how this method is meant to behave.
Note I will continue to remove documentation that doesn't
explain anything in addition to what the code already says.
Bug: T285483
Change-Id: I81fa8a5d9d0752f3aeac4015c9a27b50e054d4df
This reverts the revert commit d47b95eb4a.
When no `paramOrder` is given, known parameters should appear in the
order returned from the TemplateData API.
Previously, when TemplateData was present but no paramOrder
specified, then the parameters would appear in alphabetical order as
"unknown" parameters. Now they will appear in the order listed in
TemplateData. This is similar to the fully-specified behavior when
paramOrder is present.
This will only affect the Visual Editor template dialog, and has no
effect on serialization.
Bug: T274545
Change-Id: If8315781572af688ea1c1b14b3694b828f076b4a
This makes the code more readable and easier to reason about.
The ESLint rule responsible for this code style was removed
just recently.
Notes:
* I focus on classes that are relevant for what the WMDE team
does right now.
* I merge multiple `var` keywords only when the variables are
strongly connected.
* Caching the length in a for loop makes the code hard to
read, but not really faster when it's a trivial property
access anyway.
Bug: T284895
Change-Id: I621fed61d894a83dc95f58129bbe679d82b0f5f5
When no `paramOrder` is given, known parameters should appear in the
order returned from the TemplateData API.
Previously, when TemplateData was present but no paramOrder
specified, then the parameters would appear in alphabetical order as
"unknown" parameters. Now they will appear in the order listed in
TemplateData. This is similar to the fully-specified behavior when
paramOrder is present.
This will only affect the Visual Editor template dialog.
Bug: T274545
Change-Id: I32538de07641c288081042a41fe39eedfed7d939
Note that the tests expose a bug, getAllParametersOrdered fails to
list an unused parameter. Fixed in I32538de07641c.
Also, a minor fix to avoid an impossible template spec: paramOrder
must include all parameters.
Bug: T274545
Change-Id: Icfa7a765773d04ef05a76ecc09467305e311f6cb
Most notably:
* Introduce variable names that explain much better what's
going on.
* Reduce nesting.
Bug: T284895
Change-Id: I793677d8107abb6354f9e19d79c4879a41c4bd93
Splits out a useful intermediate calculation from getOrderedParameterNames,
exposing the full list of parameters including those that are not
present in the transclusion.
This will be used to build the sidebar checkbox list.
Bug: T274545
Change-Id: I1c6a9ea8a5e9a163751fee87f974f63c72fd1f61
These don't add any knowledge but make the code harder to read
and maintain, and are an additional source of errors.
Change-Id: Ied57741a3f985e355adfddb4e75378d5c497faa9
