This method does not only select a "part", i.e. a top-level item like
a template. It also selects sub-items like template parameters. The
new name reflects this better.
Change-Id: I51a8ddbd05b283248afba5a623cc52da7b2434f5
The feature set is (almost) fully covered by other tests, notably
the tests for the …OutlinePartWidget base class and the other two
subclasses.
The only bit that's not covered any more is the
"visualeditor-dialog-transclusion-wikitext" message. But that's
super minor and not worth a separate QUnit test.
Bug: T291157
Change-Id: I574f9cff0baf3dff885094769c124a9e05a1d1c8
I can't really tell what insight we get from the word "container".
Every widget is a "container" in some sense, isn't it?
This widget is just _the_ outline, I would argue.
Other suggestions?
Change-Id: I1fb27ee58c1a3dd790022504e978198dadf7ea02
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
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
We don't need to distinguish between these any more. Both are
"active", i.e. both focus the widget on the right side of the
dialog. Sometimes the "choose" event is fired to actually add
or remove a parameter. Sometimes it's fired, but the state of
the parameter doesn't change (for whatever reason, i.e.
because the parameter name was clicked instead of the
checkbox). There is nothing to do in this case, except for the
focus change.
Change-Id: I3c7c0c81a075ccff76eda0a4fb2aa1ac7be3cec5
In JavaScript .split() behaves different, compared to PHP. In
PHP the last element contains the rest of the string. In
JavaScript the rest of the string is discarded. The limit acts
as if the array is truncated. That's why we can reduce the
number in
'foo/bar'.split( '/', 1 )[ 0 ]
to 1, as we are only interested in the element "foo".
The same code in the other class is currently not covered by a
test. But changing it accordingly should be obviously fine now.
Change-Id: I20c27d480ddb1799df9eb1e5bc119b724e80653d
Calling .getItems() creates a copy. Using .items is possible,
but strictly speaking a private implementation detail.
Change-Id: Id9438faff88cb5ff3973bca4c959e74d9be7e823
* The extra brackets are not needed in ES6.
* Make sure the name of the test is on the next line. This makes
the code easier to read.
Change-Id: Ib871dbfa27fcadc88e7335b9efb4d583bd4300ac
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
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
The code in .cacheTemplateDataApiResponse() where the `specCache`
is filled skips missing pages. .setTemplateData() is never called.
While we could – in theory – check the `missing` flag (as done in
patchset 1), this flag never makes it to the spec.
Rather simple solution: Mark everything as undocumented, as long
as .setTemplateData() is not called.
This affects only missing pages. .setTemplateData() is called in
all other situations.
Bug: T272487
Bug: T276574
Bug: T290136
Change-Id: I7045e84f2f2ba5aa4591c94ea495b0249e6c40d6
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 this covers both the outer SelectWidget as well as most of
the functionality of the item class. This is because the outer
widget manages everything. The items are mostly dumb containers
for a `.selected` bool flag.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I6bffda3b74a4bca26032e2602563d64f7bf9bf40
These are more integration tests than actual "unit" tests. What
the tested code does depends a lot on e.g. how the model and
spec classes behave, and even on some events. Which is good. We
want to cover all of this with tests. The only question is: Is
there a good way to make these tests easier to read, while they
still cover the same code?
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I8c681f161c272d143a07ca4d0080b4089b48bcb6
