These are more integration tests than actual "unit" tests. What
the tested code does depends a lot on e.g. how the model and
spec classes behave, and even on some events. Which is good. We
want to cover all of this with tests. The only question is: Is
there a good way to make these tests easier to read, while they
still cover the same code?
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I8c681f161c272d143a07ca4d0080b4089b48bcb6
Contains:
* Full test coverage (I believe) for the filter functionality in
…OutlineTemplateWidget.
Also some TODOs for missing tests I believe are critical.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I2ac5add8e189d501d3558bbd4854cb92155bcb96
This comes with a few significant changes:
* A whole bunch of places in the code that focus and highlight
an element in the old sidebar consider the new sidebar now.
* Same when e.g. the toolbar at the bottom needs to know which
part is selected. This is read from the new sidebar now.
* To make this possible I had to merge the small helper class
we introduced in I7bc73cc back into the dialog.
It's helpful to understand how the event flow works:
* You click a template name. This does nothing (does not select
the element). It only triggers an event.
* The event is catched by the outer container that manages
all parts. From there all elements are unselected, and one
selected. This call is internal and should not trigger
another event.
Bug: T285323
Bug: T288827
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: I4a2d2b83cf2691423d4b0e6f4487228fa3c7b56d
This is mostly, if not exclusively visual, at the moment. The
actual state is still managed by the old sidebar.
I made the element OptionWidgets for convenience. This gives us
all the functionality we need (primarily setSelected and
isSelected), without to much clutter. However, I didn't made
the container a SelectWidget. This comes with to much stuff we
don't need at this level, e.g. cursor key navigation.
Bug: T285323
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: I20dbd2ba23ceaa9125947b25e037c0bb3c91a471
Not only do we want to make sure getUniquePartId() always starts
at 0 and increments correctly, it should return a number (and
not e.g. "part_0").
I realize the getTitle() test is also testing functionality from
mw.libs.ve.… (can be found in the file ve.utils.parsoid.js).
This is intentional. What we care about at this point is not a
library but the very specific functionality of a very specific
method we use quite a lot in code we touch.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I43c1d00dacf27a68b16f62ecca4adda22f437391
Similar code elsewhere checks whether this.root is set
(e.g. ve.ce.FocusableNode.prototype.onFocusableSetup).
And code here checks whether this.surface is set.
Bug: T289201
Change-Id: If07dc75ca76f2d171bc2eae83be10083d95096f8
Most notably:
* Move some code snippets from the outer …TemplateWidget to
the inner …SelectWidget, without introducing new
dependencies.
* Move all knowledge about the item class
…OutlineParameterWidget class into …SelectWidget.
* Some more self-documenting method names for event handlers.
* Avoid the somewhat ambiguous variable name "checkbox" in
favor of "item". That's how it's named in the upstream OOUI
…SelectWidget.
This is extracted from the following patch Ibd94c39. The
difference is that the following patch adds a new dependency:
The …SelectWidget gets to know the template model. This patch
here contains all changes that are possible without this new
dependency.
Bug: T288827
Change-Id: I187f313c84424b28005d9276cb1356029f9ebb75
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
We should only need that label for the link. The other mechanic
would fail when editing wikitext like this:
{{{{echo|<}}|param=foo}}
Bug: T272487
Change-Id: If8d228b40bf1589181e83e8f68f3c33b4c7759c7
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 was removed in I44ee0014ac50c9c5dc66543dcd045dd5a81ce37c.
This basically partly reapplies I844db115f2563cb9ee1629c30d5f49d1ce58f5bd.
Bug: T289730
Change-Id: I14435b9f84b9a24445befbb8dc7fefce44bba078
These tests obviously don't need this extra environment.
They run just fine (and faster) without.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: Ib186a07cd556f741e0440ffa54ae6aaaf626adcd
Specifying it as such creates a 0 based index for what is a single value
property. This wasn't noticed before because I6b81ea318f52e accessed the
request object directly instead of using $params. See also
I3baa1ebb66559 for how this bug manifested in GrowthExperiments.
Bug: T289652
Change-Id: Ife8350d1cea79fc1dd6f3cb040a7801b9fe6db91
This also fixes a mistake in the class where we forgot to
disconnect event handlers when an element is removed from
the list. This doesn't have much of a consequence, as the
event flow is only in one direction, from the destroyed
element up. This is not possible any more.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I0bcc1d68c50b8cbdb033ef6692b34e2fc94e8d85
This is not a file we created recently, but one we care about.
This is also a nice start to get in the mood to write tests.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I6475b00508cfa9188ab0d78c2bfd31bab8aed6ed
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
