I'm more in favor of leaving no garbage behind. The TODO with a date
is a good way of making sure this gets removed eventually.
This could have been part of Ie6eea76. The new code is added to the
same spot where the code removed in Ie6eea76 originally was.
Bug: T296471
Depends-On: Ie6eea76dacdc614ecb910c48e7e1f519b8c69322
Change-Id: Idec63201ff4aa52a0c53c6d007577a93c94e0ec0
Will be removed when parameters are added. Needs different margins
depending on beeing shown in the single transclusion mode without
header or on multiple transclusions.
Bug: T300710
Change-Id: Ieb95d7276aa4d4b0fcbb74f87ab734e4a393dc21
Same random finds while working on something else. I carefully
checked and made sure these methods are actually called without the
optional parameter.
Change-Id: Iab36fd130258322985b5d6e7f8e1f7b4ee235ba2
These are only needed when we need to access a specific `this` from
within another `function () {}` context. This is not the case in the
situations here.
This is split from Ibf25d7e to make it smaller and easier to argue
about.
Change-Id: Ide1476de91fc343aa992ad92a1321d3a38b06dd0
This option was added in 0.43.0. Now that the close button is handled,
the remaining functionality (store a flag in local storage, and fixing
link targets) doesn't really justify a separate class, especially as
it's currently only used once.
Change-Id: I0fd81cadccc077dbf957302f9f41409c5a1f4f20
Prevents accidentally treating plain text or user input
as HTML, which could be an XSS vulnerability.
Change-Id: Id4af48447a0907962a57340cb60aca08df9cc505
The "Add parameter" page always starts collapsed. Even if a template
doesn't contain anything but this. But most of the content isn't
visible, unless the user presses the button. It's not only a lot of
content, it's also rather expensive, including .parseDom(),
LinkCache.styleElement(), and ve.targetLinksToNewWindow(). This adds
up in large multi-part transclusions. In an example with 200 parts
the total blocking time goes down from 2.9s to 2.4s. Which means this
is not a major bottleneck, but still worth it.
Bug: T296335
Change-Id: Ieab9fd35d145142b04d2267d8e5a2e10a4c02784
This does have a significant impact on the performance of the
template dialog. Not only on construction time, but also because
MWExpandableContentElement objects do some quite expensive
.updateSize() calculations the moment they become visible.
I profiled a template with (only) 200 undocumented parameters.
Construction time goes down from ~600ms to ~520ms. The mentioned
.updateSize() runtime goes down from ~300ms to ~10ms.
Bug: T296335
Change-Id: I280f814e722b299aae0ec6a5a2fa59292e3e5887
This doesn't have much of an impact on performance according to my
profiling. But I think it's worth it nevertheless. The idea is to
skip that <div> entirely when it's empty.
Bug: T296335
Change-Id: Id155725fbc2e3453acc1cdcabfdc2d687285d694
This is a more radical change, compared to the previous patch.
I will post more detailled explanations as comments on Gerrit.
Change-Id: I6909b3f0b2c153b7ee9995441e995ffa793eab40
This is done for a lot of the elements in this class. They are trivial
jQuery elements instead of OOUI widgets. While we usually want to use
OOUI widgets, this is different in this case. Think of a template with
1000 parameters.
Bug: T291284
Change-Id: Ie1960ee706dca17aa4963c23a2e89c1cfff106f9
I moved some code around and found that quite a lot of code wants to
know:
* Is the length of this transclusion exactly 1?
* I need that 1st part.
There is more that can potentially moved from the dialog to the model.
But I don't want to make this patch to big.
Bug: T292371
Change-Id: Ia94ed0450d04dd97c4c41f5bf7c266f9a534e821
It's not only used as an event handler, but called as an ordinary
method as well. Let the name reflect this better.
Change-Id: Ie5a0d9c4cd072063a164886f18d0859327b3f267
… obviously only to methods that are meant to be private, i.e.
only called from within the class (and possibly tests).
Change-Id: I581558078dc7210abac5f5724f71316ac45745e6
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
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
The previous patch I15aa2c0 (approved by UX) was incomplete. The
required indicator was still shown, depending on the skin.
This patch also reduces the amount of generated HTML when it
doesn't have an effect anyway. At the moment an empty <span></span>
is generated for _every_ parameter in the dialog. That's potentially
hundreds. But the element is only needed for deprecated and
(in the old UI) required parameters.
A missing space is added while we touch this code anyway. The
missing whitespace between label and indicator icon is confirmed to
be a bug by UX.
Styles that are the same on all skins are moved to the .css file
that's loaded for all skins. Missing word-wrapping for overly long
template parameter names (on the right side of the dialog) is added.
The position of the indicator icon was broken on Minerva the moment
a parameter name is a bit longer. Fixed by replacing `inline-block`
with `inline`.
Bug: T290492
Change-Id: Ie346d88969cec2effaf90d328d08567ab7b7bf75
This applies in several situations. A trivial one is a parameter
that's already in use, but you uncheck it while the relevant
error message is shown. Vice versa.
Bug: T290977
Change-Id: Ia4114194a2efe34a7d51e633c776ce892cc9cb18
This patch improves the error handling for when a user tries to add
a parameter which is either an alias of a existing parameter, the
primary name of a existing aliased parameter, or a name/alias of an
existing parameter which is shown with an override label.
The error message was modified to always refer to the conflicting
parameter using the same name that is has in the sidebar.
Example: A parameter named "Parameter B" is already present in the
sidebar under its alias "B". When a user tries to add "Parameter B",
the new error message will inform the user that the parameter they
are trying to add already exists as "B".
Bug: T285869
Change-Id: I762b72b6cf14eb8ff5fcef63b4dcb70e297050de
It's impossible to use the delete button from the
OO.ui.OutlineControlsWidget to delete a parameter when the new
sidebar is active.
This partly fixes one of the issues mentioned in I97d77f4. The
delete button might stil become active for a moment (not fixed
yet), but doesn't stay active forever any more with this fix
in place.
Apparently this also makes another workaround obsolete.
Change-Id: I0bca310772c26149170af23ff8e5505c3ce4adf4
I tried to review all of them. Some of the changes I did:
* Make sure the `config` parameter is not marked as optional
when it is not.
* Make sure default values are mentioned.
* List individual `@cfg` options when it makes sense.
Note I don't list all options a class could accept (e.g. via all
its parent classes and mixins). That's too much. Instead I checked
how a class is actually used and list only these options.
Even then I don't list everything, e.g. unspecific options
like "classes" that can be used pretty much everywhere.
Change-Id: Idf4fbe1dc3608ace277df9e385f2f140df3a2f50
* 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
When I try to click the input field, the expand/collapse button
is focused instead.
This also fixes a copy paste mistake in this class.
Change-Id: If9ab340711fbe7d88845c008360fde5df7059df0
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
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
* 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
- Change description text according to ticket
- Make sure link to template page opens in new tab
- Add missing placeholder text
Bug: T272487
Change-Id: Ie8189e9cb9db5908e8fc5fc8bf7ff20df5595094
When I press the button to expand the input field for
undocumented parameters, it needs to be focused. Otherwise I
have to click it manually all the time.
We probably forgot to list this as an acceptance criteria when
working on Ic5dcd36.
This also replaced a bit of JavaScript with CSS. I do this
mainly because I found the mixture before (one piece was
hidden via JavaScript, another via CSS) a bit confusing.
Bug: T272487
Change-Id: I0cbee63c65a37f2f1860bde007c1e5c8408ba006
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
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
What this changes:
* The moment the user selects anything in the parameter search
widget, the input is cleared, no matter what happens next.
Even in case of an error. We know the input was bad in this
case. Let's get rid of it.
* The method makes sure it does not even try to add a
duplicate parameter. This should be unreachable, but better
be safe than sorry.
This is split from I5eeb973. I run into this while playing
around with different approaches related to hiding deprecated
parameters. Typically there should be no way the parameter
search widget offers a duplicate. Still I believe it's a good
idea to have this extra safety-net.
Bug: T272487
Bug: T288827
Change-Id: I04e76d73b4a3f6467d0ccf3ccff5d2f6b4114bd9
This removes the paramter placeholder page from all places where it's
not usefull anymore under the new sidebar.
The new UI will be re-added in follow up patches.
Bug: T272487
Change-Id: Ifc6f6f64fed1a1b23c92282e2a1bb40a7d401d72
I found this while working on T274551, which is all about the
definition of "empty".
In the old sidebar a parameter's name is dimmed (gray) as long as
the parameter's value is empty. This stops working entirely when
there is a default value.
My first impulse was "this is a bug". When there is a default
value, both the empty string and the default value (when the user
enters it exactly) typically trigger the same behavior: The
template uses the default value, just as if the user entered it.
But this code is correct because of the way it is used. Only
parameters that are "truly" empty should be visually marked as
such. The moment there is a default value it is either impossible
to change this back to an empty string – meaning the parameter
can never be truly empty – or the empty string is meaningful user
input.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I90657bfe83e56afd3942428c0dd8a47b444e39c9
