.test() is the dedicated syntax for a boolean "does match? yes/no?"
check. .match() returns an array of matches, or null. This is just not
needed in these situations.
Change-Id: Ibb996ab843d1a6c7d7af98d6a112990665d543b2
These two lines forcefully enabled the review/preview buttons, even
when the review/preview panel is already active.
Bug: T300448
Change-Id: I6dbe6ee88728a65233a455b768f17bff668fe3a8
* I can't guarantee this fixes T301914. But I suspect the bug can not
be triggered any more with this plus If9b6050 in place.
* I wasn't able to reproduce the issue locally. But I learned that
1. it's related to the hotkey, and
2. it's because the dialog looses focus, and the focus ends on the
VE surface in te background. Pressing Esc there closes VE. That's
intended behavior.
* I tried to use .trigger( 'click' ), but it doesn't make much of a
difference. The only magic check is if the button is disabled. But no
visibility checks are done.
Bug: T301914
Change-Id: I2f66fc2411144c60cd08baae58452d336b4e9802
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
Covers the base functionality to hide the parameters. Performance
optimizations could be done in a follow up.
Bug: T300640
Change-Id: Ia99b5da392273f1445e475a0720a656460612dcf
The behavior is now consistant with what would happen when the
buttons are triggered.
Instead of emitting a button click I directly wired the methods
that will by triggerd by the click. This might make it easier to
remove the old sidbar later.
To avoid movement when the buttons should be disabled, an
additional check was added to the onMove method. It's not identical
to the more complex check in the outlineControlsWidget, but should
be enough for our use case. The onDelete method already just does
nothing if nothing is selected.
Bug: T300971
Change-Id: I8a278c9657c91fd648944b5a8c1204c9fff75b7e
Parsing it in the RL module caused the module cache key to depend
on the parse, which is slow and makes ResourceLoader sad. The usual
approach for solving this (I206bb05d28) can't be used, because of
how EditPage generates this message.
Bonus #1:
Generate the message for the correct page title. MediaWiki allows
customizing it per-namespace or even per-title, which we haven't
supported before.
Bonus #2:
Pass the context for message localisation (depends on I5f7c77970d).
EditPage::getCopyrightWarning() was parsing messages without the
interface flag, causing some needless processing elsewhere.
Depends-On: I5f7c77970d0525c0ff394f8bd72c69dcb5d00623
Bug: T298822
Change-Id: Iaa626f0e6379a5a370f9c465cea8528bb5bde7f7
Do show a confirmation when editing templates without parameters,
but don't show the confirmation when you're only on the template search
page.
Bug: T299394
Change-Id: I8205bb6a0f92b7b535a80f7f6a43674f1aa5b51b
We were using addItems() incorrectly, and it stopped working after
change Ib1241f93d214e8a7d2f757a120f84de3879575af in OOUI.
Bug: T299818
Change-Id: I2d00cb929673a419789ca6f8bc308721373e1da8
The only places where this dialog is used now will have the same
button labels and format. We want to use "normal" destructive here
so no additional "primary" styling.
It seems that the focus on the action will only be applied
automatically when it is primary. So extra code is needed.
Bug: T299647
Change-Id: Ib5250b79e85d27ea197b83c6380863d0749e5d89
Reuse the back button confirmation dialog for the close button. The
condition is slightly different: need confirmation if there are any
manually-entered values for any parameter AND the user has edited
the template in this session.
The "reset" action was synthetic, only used internally and not
connected to buttons or menus. Canonically, action='' is the close
action for OOUI.
Bug: T297792
Change-Id: I4ff644c7ab24ed9ba1a4c27d762563c5d6771cfc
Without changing behavior, consolidate the logic for detecting
whether the editor has made changes to the template. This is
responsible for enabling and disabling the "Apply changes" button.
Change-Id: Ic4755b13f30fb738a7cb1eebaddef0435ea61d34
Currently, the insert template dialog includes a back button in the
upper corner. Confirmation of abandoning unsaved changes was
accomplished in an overlay panel. This patch rewrites as a dialog
and updates the on-screen text.
Bug: T297792
Change-Id: Ifa2ff97c9284609ee2a784f455789c56a762ba50
Prevents accidentally treating plain text or user input
as HTML, which could be an XSS vulnerability.
Change-Id: Id4af48447a0907962a57340cb60aca08df9cc505
* Fix incorrect use of .append() instead of .text() (which was causing
some l10n messages to be treated as raw HTML)
* Avoid escaping and parsing HTML several times when plain text was
intended
* Remove some unused options and variables
Follow-up to 839b64d882.
Change-Id: I124257c73fe09713afefccdec8e90200e6ae433d
This sorting algorithm was introduced via Ic6bc348 (T274544). Note
there is no index parameter in the .onReplacePart() handler at this
point. When a part was moved, it was removed and simply appended
to the end. The additional sorting was needed to move it back to the
correct position.
This changed a few days later via Iafe29f1. There is now an index
parameter. The .onReplacePart() handler does the same as before, but
puts the part at the correct position right away. The additional
sorting is pointless since then.
The removed code alone is responsible for 1/3 of the total blocking
time when the template dialog opens.
Bug: T296335
Change-Id: I6c3fa70b532d34cd29d59c3b48ab81ebf608d548
onReplacePart is being called when templates are being moved up or down.
To prevent that the multipart message gets moved around passively e.g.
by one element being added above it, this patch adds it to the top after each movement.
Bug: T292829
Change-Id: I946c9bc4ba5e1d261aefbb28a8c642bb58964842
We forgot change the way that message is build while adding the link
in 07f105fd7. Now it gets parsed correctly and the link will open in
a new tab.
Bug: T284985
Change-Id: I1ed9dfdafd08d08c5aff45f4b74c540b35ec14a1
