The weird auto-scroll feature is described in T289043#7297679.
This also fixes T291381 different than I393a2b1. Only one of the
patches should be merged.
Bug: T289043
Bug: T291381
Change-Id: I70d87f12fd68001e880510fb6c38d7c419d64b15
AddPart in the resetDialog also triggers replace part
so this call could be removed there.
Bug: T291365
Change-Id: Id6c0f5bf3aaece45da37ffab75a4d99c113944f6
This is mostly re-arranging existing code. Actual changes made:
* Remove the message that claims a template can't exist. We can't
really know this.
* Instead show the message about "modifiers" in cases where curly
braces and other wikitext syntax is involved.
Bug: T290140
Change-Id: I713d7f54cad2510f9a02c113600980cba8c3e58b
The titles in the link cache do not include subst: anymore so to see
if these pages exist we need to use the same link title used in the
query.
Bug: T290140
Change-Id: I18de81e0bf46212c2199a948f7ca89182aa19eff
This code was introduced in I8fafee6. I can't tell any more what
the "bug" mentioned in the commit message was. Let's get rid of the
duplicate code path, see if we run into regressions and deal with
them one by one. That's much easier to handle than keeping this
confusing code path around.
Note this "focusin" event handler was actually re-implementing
parts of the upstream BookletLayout, namely
OO.ui.BookletLayout.onStackLayoutFocus().
Bug: T289043
Bug: T291381
Change-Id: Ib386ae6efec08465122f0e8ee81cd6dc9a2d337a
I was (again) wondering why the try-catch is there. But it's actually
needed. Now covered by a test.
Bug: T290140
Bug: T291062
Change-Id: Iccc7274ed9e7b81b8491dbca7d3d771706b0ed09
Note there is still an issue with the upstream
OO.ui.BookletLayout.selectFirstSelectablePage() method stealing
the focus in some situations when you press space. Still this patch
already improves the situation. Pressing space on both top-level
template elements as well as parameters should scroll the thing into
view, but keep the focus in the sidebar. This was just not happening
at all.
Make sure to use a very long multi-part template to test this.
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: I9c5478a04b14b94ccd5d00480d48a7d59b4e0c37
We broke something with the change I166b971. When we renamed that
method it started to override (and therefor disable) the method
with the same name from the base class.
I decided to move all code in the subclass for the moment. It might
be misplaced there (note how almost all code related to the new
sidebar is in the base class). But this is cleanup work for later.
Bug: T289043
Bug: T291151
Change-Id: Id255585e78967eee0f72c27727cd23211674923c
The most basic fix. The "outlined" flag is set to false for the
cite dialog, in contrast to the transclusion dialog. It's always
true for the transclusion dialog. Note it doesn't mean the sidebar
is visible, but specifies if a sidebar is created in the first
place.
Bug: T291241
Change-Id: I5a8b538949e9fd0b8e85a6a91ca2420ef72e4612
We removed this line of code in a recent patch, but it turns out
it's still necessary in at least one situation:
* Make sure you have a multi-part template where the first part is
a wikitext snippet.
* Edit the template.
* Click the very first item in the sidebar.
Nothing happens. But the text cursor should be in the wikitext
field.
Another situation:
* Put the text cursor in the first wikitext field.
* Press shift + tab. Now a button in the bottom toolbar should have
the focus.
* Click the 1st element in the sidebar. Again, nothing happens.
The extra .focus() call is redundant in many situations. But it also
doesn't hurt to repeat it. It will just re-focus the element that's
already focused.
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: Iccbe376b98a1b1e5469cd17e1c95d5d8869442d3
It was called like this because the event is literally called "set".
But it doesn't explain _what_ is set.
The new name .onBookletLayoutSetPage() already appears somewhere
else in the codebase.
Change-Id: I166b971c08f5d0fae97fc9d6244117a680f84b7c
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
I realised these are vital information to make the buttons at
the bottom of the template dialog behave sane. It's still
possible to focus this page, even if it doesn't have a visible
item in any of the old/new sidebars. This is when these flags
are used to decide if the up/down/remove buttons should be
enabled.
Bug: T291151
Change-Id: I6ab709b856d110bfb37daa1592c0b6a99714aa25
The OO.ui.OutlineOptionWidget class does have an .isRemovable()
state. This is how OO.ui.OutlineControlsWidget decides if the
remove button can be used.
It appears like ve.ui.MWParameterPage forgot to mark required
parameters as not removable.
This makes some oddly specific code in ve.ui.MWTransclusionDialog
obsolete. Note how this class does not contain any other code
about "required" or other flags specific to parameters.
Note that one aspect of this patch will be visible in the old
sidebar: The trashcan will be visible on required parameters, but
disabled. It was hidden before. However, this actually improves
the UX. Hiding the trashcan made the up/down buttons jump around.
This makes it unnecessary hard to hit them. It also causes visual
distraction when navigating the list of parameters.
Let's stick to the upstream OOUI behavior.
The remove button still disappears when the only element in the
dialog is the template search widget. This is clearly an
entirely different state. (Don't ask why the up/down buttons are
not hidden. It was like this before.)
Bug: T289039
Change-Id: If78881e503f19f497f1993da4e5b9b09ee538307
The separate setup method was introduced in 2014 via I7c3c133.
It appears like most of the code here was written before this
method existed. Let's update it.
* this.outlineItem is guaranteed to be set. No need for the `if`.
* The parent method is effectively abstract. There is no point in
calling it, I would argue.
* The return value is never used. I.e. this method is never
chained, and probably shouldn't.
Change-Id: Ida26ebdf09be74958936c3950ebdf6def9a69bc0
