* The template model fires an "add" event. Listeners don't
automatically steal the focus any more.
* Instead there is a separate "focusTemplateParameterById" event
fired from all relevant places that add a parameter.
* The "remove" doesn't steal the focus any more.
Bug: T285323
Change-Id: I93f17727524bfbcf6f11647a6c2441781337c4cc
The original idea was to make the interface as narrow as
possible. However, it turns out it's better to model the
"templateParameterClick" event more closely after the "choose"
event.
This is split off to make reviewing the following patches
easier.
Change-Id: I271f576c6cd756cecfc6cb1fd64810f8da5c3575
Pure cleanup, doesn't change behavior.
Change If8da5ae85dff63c34 included in OOUI v0.42.0 tracks invisible
controls, so it's no longer necessary to maintain persistent class
variables pointing to the buttons.
Also simplify repeated logic to make it clearly exclusive.
Bug: T290554
Change-Id: If9b6404d7061999540515645fa8e50b9a21f5a21
The list of parameters should remove itself from the list of
possible tab navigation targets when it's empty.
Note there is no way to remove elements from the parameter
list. That's why we don't care about "remove" or "clear"
actions.
Change-Id: I8b1215117e0ddc94f787d173e9bea6f7567d9671
Previously, when the tranclusion dialog was being resized, there was
a specific width at which both the sidebar was collapsed and the dialog
was downsized from "larger/large" to "medium". This resulted in the
dialog switching from fullscreen to floating, since the dialog's width
breakpoint for "medium" doesn't match our width breakpoint for mobile.
If the user continued to downsize past this breakpoint, then the dialog
would eventually switch back to fullscreen resulting in this weird
behavior.
A simple way to prevent this is to avoid changing the dialog's size
at all. Since we don't support collapsing the new sidebar (unless
already in fullscreen), we can just leave the dialog at the
"larger/large" size.
Bug: T274554
Change-Id: I5460cdfb1a7ed73fe7957745ba37055c5f66dce1
This is split from patch Iebb982e to make it easier to review.
The name is rather ambiguous. Does "input" refer to the input
element? Is it triggered for every key press, i.e. when the
input changes? Or when it's submitted?
Change-Id: Iddbe3bfb9faf3561d8d71b96ffae507799827a95
Any of these characters results in bad wikitext, when we accept
it in a template parameter name.
Instead of displaying an error message we simply block the
button, as long as the input is not a valid parameter name.
Coming up with a message is not really worth it, I would
argue. Users typically don't have a reason to use any of these
characters. This is super rare. And even if, the behavior of
the widget is not hard to understand, I believe.
The same is done in ve.ui.MWParameterSearchWidget, a little
hidden in the .addResults() method.
Not yet approved by UX. Can be done in demo time.
Bug: T285869
Change-Id: I5576cdfb90411e5fdec93749f72939d31ecd9c56
E.g. avoid calling the rather expensive method multiple times
in a row, if only 1 of the results is needed.
Change-Id: Iff1d2c0892367e927303f6f45d3231e04c045cab
* Use a more specific …-top property, as this is the only thing
we need to overwrite.
* Bring some selectors in a hierarchical order that makes more
sense.
Change-Id: If36db87d83f699fe0a43ac67d439cac42cbb1fa3
* New help text for the case where TemplateData is present, whether
or not it includes a description.
* Remove help text when TemplateData is missing.
Bug: T288465
Change-Id: I0668ccae8eeb5ffffc626e3b7d24c1d7ed99bbed
I tried hard to come up with the best possible names. Some of the
criteria I used:
* Longer and more unique is better. This makes it much easier to
e.g. search for the event name.
* The term "part" should only be used for top-level parts. While
template parameters have a unique id, they are not a subclass
of …TransclusionPartModel and therefor not "parts".
* BookletLayout manages "pages" via "page names".
* The page names of top-level parts are identical with the part
id, see ve.ui.MWTemplateDialog.getPageFromPart.
* The page names of parameters are identical with the parameter
model id, see ve.ui.MWTemplateDialog.onAddParameter.
Some code knows parameter ids, but not what pages are. Other code
knows page names, but not what parameters are. The transition
currently happens in the …OutlineContainerWidget. We might want
to move this point up to the …TemplateDialog. But I would argue
this is good enough for now and can be changed later, if needed.
Bug: T285323
Change-Id: Iab2805b3203988db400b67c8d00e48905fdc53dc
I tried to memorize the cursor position in the list of
parameters. This way you could leave the list with tab, and
return to the original position with shift+tab. Unfortunately
this is not how the SelectWidget works. The moment the
highlight is gone it's gone. There is nothing that remembers
a position. We could introduce code to do this. But I feel
like this is a lot of effort for not much benefit. Also not
listed as a requirement anywhere, at the moment.
Bug: T285323
Change-Id: I8d44ba4539ec4b5535bc031accfeacd87e1886eb
This got lost in patch I20dbd2b.
Both events come from the same sidebar class. The difference
between the two is:
* selectPart is when the button representing a top-level part
is clicked.
* focusPart is when a parameter name is clicked while the
parameter is already checked.
Yes, this is confusing at the moment. Following patches will
rename, merge and split a lot of these events to be much more
self-explaining.
Bug: T285323
Change-Id: I0c6b53c93c712ff5e47c1beb5199d590cba7ab1a
We forgot to remove this in I319896a. The individual
…TransclusionOutlineParameterWidgets don't fire this event any
more. Instead this is done by the …SelectWidget.
Bug: T285323
Change-Id: I2c29e45127464785ffdc32d73b52188fcbefb7bf
Note there are currently two different code paths utilizing two
different events. The existing event handler actually changes
the selection of the top-level part in the sidebar (the
corresponding template name turns blue). The new event handler
highlights a parameter (it turns gray). This is currently
intentional (partly because of a bug in OOUI). I will try to
merge these code paths, if possible.
Please test, and if it works fine from the user's perspective,
please merge it as it is for now.
Bug: T285323
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: I8fafee68b8b7ff225c7b3c327f483f3426d8129c
Proof of concept: while flex is – well – flexible, it feels like
this should be possible with some good old block containers and
margins. It's pixel-perfect in my test.
Bug: T288465
Change-Id: I1458900fff197e08ce318398524a3cf2b6b9ee2a
