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
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an outdated model.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MWParameterSearchWidget pulls data from an outdated model.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
