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
When what you type is a partial match, you can't add it as an
unknown parameter, even if that would be the correct action. The
reason for this unexpected edge-case is a mistake in the code
where a variable called "exactMatch" is set when a *partial*
"nameMatch" was found.
Bug: T285940
Change-Id: I6d12e2d7251a19d7d5f8be544c3c32a3ac14fcf0
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
I rearranged this piece of code like a dozen times before I
finally understood what it actually does. This should be much
more obvious now.
The idea is:
* If no edit was made the button is always disabled.
* You can save pretty much everything, except when the
transclusion still starts with a placeholder.
* You can also click the done button when the dialog is empty.
This feels a bit odd, but was like this before. I think this
codepath is unreachable. But it probably doesn't hurt to
keep it.
Bug: T284895
Change-Id: Ic483201b64fd64f414c5b1ec4c44198b8eadb9f2
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
This property is a reference to a static variable with the
same name, initialized at the very top of the file. All
instances of the class use the same cache. They all use the
shared specCache directly, not the reference.
Depends-On: I0084410b7eab29048451ad67c18d6c2180c4f1b1
Change-Id: I9fd79ce3abd533dbb48a210e596802ea9e692855
This reverts commit 950a5300dc.
Reason for revert: This broke several workflows. The reason is
that MWParameterPlaceholderPage & MWParameterSearchWidget both
hold references to the MWTemplateModel. This model is not
always the same. The dialog might be the same when a template
is edited multiple times. But the model might be a new one.
From this point on the MWParameterSearchWidget pulls data from
an outdated model.
Bug: T284636
Bug: T285571
Change-Id: I7b9ea8cab8f17705ec8020f07e3732da6ba0e73c
This does not revert commit 950a5300 but applies the most
minimal hotfix I could come up with.
The reason for the breakage is that MWParameterPlaceholderPage
& MWParameterSearchWidget both hold references to the
MWTemplateModel. This model is not always the same. The dialog
might be the same when a template is edited multiple times.
But the model might be a new one. From this point on the
MWParameterSearchWidget pulls data from an outdated model.
This extra check compares this model reference and creates a
new widget when it changed.
Bug: T284636
Bug: T285571
Change-Id: Ib3eca52bbff90ffbf56a257e3984adcbe02b310b
There is a codepath where `modelPromise` is undefined and
calling `modelPromise.then()` fails. This codepath implies
that the dialog is empty and there is nothing to update. We
can just close the dialog then.
I found this while debugging the actions in this dialog.
This happens when the dialog is empty (except for a
placeholder) but you submit it anyway. This is typically
not possible as the button is supposed to be disabled.
Still I think it's a good idea to make this code less
fragile.
The relevant code was introduced in Ibc2fc66 (2016).
Change-Id: Ia6b723548456c211b944a2320949bfc23b0afa16
