Most notably:
* Move some code snippets from the outer …TemplateWidget to
the inner …SelectWidget, without introducing new
dependencies.
* Move all knowledge about the item class
…OutlineParameterWidget class into …SelectWidget.
* Some more self-documenting method names for event handlers.
* Avoid the somewhat ambiguous variable name "checkbox" in
favor of "item". That's how it's named in the upstream OOUI
…SelectWidget.
This is extracted from the following patch Ibd94c39. The
difference is that the following patch adds a new dependency:
The …SelectWidget gets to know the template model. This patch
here contains all changes that are possible without this new
dependency.
Bug: T288827
Change-Id: I187f313c84424b28005d9276cb1356029f9ebb75
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
These tests obviously don't need this extra environment.
They run just fine (and faster) without.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: Ib186a07cd556f741e0440ffa54ae6aaaf626adcd
This also fixes a mistake in the class where we forgot to
disconnect event handlers when an element is removed from
the list. This doesn't have much of a consequence, as the
event flow is only in one direction, from the destroyed
element up. This is not possible any more.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I0bcc1d68c50b8cbdb033ef6692b34e2fc94e8d85
This is not a file we created recently, but one we care about.
This is also a nice start to get in the mood to write tests.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I6475b00508cfa9188ab0d78c2bfd31bab8aed6ed
This is just the smallest possible boilerplate to get the first
trivial test running. More test cases will be added in the
following patches.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I3a4e49a7b9761db00b211e933386bad71d4f0942
This replaces I8cf9ecd.
Significant changes:
* The …OutlineContainerWidget doesn't need to know the
BookletLayout any more. The only remaining resason to have
this dependency was some focus management. This is now done
via an event.
* Renamed an existing event to match the new one. The two
really mean and do the exact same, even if they are
triggered from two different places.
* Simplified some existing code.
* Updated documentation.
Bug: T288827
Change-Id: Ifcf2cadabf7fa4b8ecb72e3937003fab3b00d9bb
Names like "fetch" or "resolve" are heavily ambiguous and
continue to confuse me. I hope these new names reflect better
what's going on.
Bug: T288827
Depends-On: I587a203a9370e4742f87586b4f1867b37459c375
Change-Id: I8fa47ed313e7d7b2c114a5638a67c4f3c8b830f1
This merges all code-paths that re-select a part (i.e. an input
widget on the right side of the template dialog).
Note there is an edge-case that actually changes with this
patch. When a page is removed, and creating a new page fails,
there is an `if ( page )` check. Before, the behavior was that
nothing gets selected in this case. After this change the
behavior is the same as if a page was removed: the closest one
gets selected. Not only does this make more sense. The `if` is
only a fail-safe anyway and should not result in different
behavior.
Bug: T288827
Change-Id: Ibb0260587588fb51a876658b16a81c5a73371dc4
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
