I get a scrollbar at the bottom of the sidebar. The reason is
that the container's width is 100% + 1px. The extra pixel is
from the border, which is not needed in this mode.
Bug: T274554
Change-Id: I4f749be6b9a7f89f9a7a195dc66c5c18253b1327
This check makes sure the user doesn't loose work when clicking
the back button. I would like to argue that neither of these
values is valuable enough to block the user with a confirmation
dialog:
* Literally nothing is lost when the input is empty.
* The auto-value is only temporarily lost, but will
automatically be restored when the user decides to add the
template back. The input field is pre-filled with this value.
* The default value doesn't need to be manually entered. It will
show up anyway when the parameter is missing.
There is a rare edge-case, but it is not really relevant in this
situation. Some templates allow to override a default value with
the empty string. This will be considered irrelevant by this
code. However, this was already happening before and doesn't
change with this patch.
The only edge-case where this patch makes a difference is if a
parameter is marked as required or suggested, is documented to
have a default value, _and_ the template allows to override it
with an empty string. But this combination is rather crazy, if
not bogus, and not worth considering here, I believe.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: Ib176a82844335c3d4dd5b720d335ec28245e1637
This is really only about the methods name, but doesn't change
any behavior.
I realized we work with several different definitions of what
"empty" means. There are at least two significant definitions:
1. When a parameter's value is the empty string or identical
to the default value, the behavior of the template is the same.
It will use the default value just as if the user entered it.
The auto-value is a meaningful value in this scenario and can't
be considered equal to the empty string.
2. The context here is when the user presses the back button.
This will destroy all user input. But an auto-value is not user
input. It will appear again when the user realizes they made a
mistake. Nothing is lost.
Personally, I would not use the word "empty" to describe this
concept. Things like "containsUserProvidedValue",
"isCustomValue", "isMeaningfulValue", … come to mind. These are
all still a big vague. A "user provided" value can be identical
to the default or auto-value. "Custom" how? I went for
"containsValuableData" for now.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I2912a35556795c867a6b2396cbad291e947f0ed6
This is a direct follow-up to I6ebd020.
Steps to reproduce the bug:
* Make sure you have a template with a deprecated parameter.
The position doesn't matter.
* Add the template. The deprecated parameter is hidden.
* Add an undocumented parameter, e.g. "b". This is added to the
end, as it should.
* Add an undocumented parameter "a". This should appear before
"b", but doesn't. The reason is because the invisible
deprecated parameter is in the list that is used to calculate
the index, shifting it by 1 (or more when there are more
hidden parameters).
This patch includes a few closely related changes:
* We can loop the list of checkboxes directly instead of
indirectly via the list of parameter names.
* I made it so that an active filter only resets if it would
hide the new parameter. The original problem we had to solve
was that the new parameter would always be visible, even if
it doesn't match the filter. This awkward mismatch is still
guaranteed to not happen.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I1b0480ae836cc19b77b159d3fb30ff32e8c59df4
I came up with a new event to do this. This event is triggered
individually for each parameter. An alternative is a single
event that gets a list of visible parameters. Is this better?
What do you think?
Bug: T288202
Change-Id: Ia44da16917c28171a01aef0f1c613dcd5d3266ba
This is – for now – intentionally done in a way that can be
undone. This will still be helpful for debugging for a while.
But we need to get rid of the duplication to be able to make
this new functionality visible on the beta cluster.
Actual removal will hapen the moment we actually remove the
old toolbar. There are already tickets for this.
Bug: T286765
Change-Id: I842c3c39a55a273af20643fa8a602d2e57fb6b8c
This affects only the new sidebar. Deprecated parameters don't
get a checkbox, except they are used already. "Used" includes
parameters that are present, but empty.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I6ebd020d02650c19060345d13495373acab363df
This method already exists in the ve.dm.MWTransclusionPartModel
base class where it does the exact same.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I19d5914ed9b4b435c83ea4d64019bc46ce1ce8fd
This reverts commit 0d4dee341b.
Reason for revert: This made it entirely impossible to add a
deprecated parameter, even if done intentionally. Needs more tests.
Bug: T274551
Change-Id: I7389bad0845cd1ce78f9d7ef71592cb1ce2a063e
They both want to handle the same URLs. If we detect that
DiscussionTools new topic tool will open, then do not open 2017
wikitext editor.
Bug: T282204
Change-Id: Ic7dd677ea219938969f60bab91387c2e03ebdbe6
Disambiguation pages are rarely the page users intend to link to,
especially with newbies. By moving the disambig page(s) as the last
result, the user is more likely to pick the page they actually intended
to link to.
Bug: T285510
Depends-On: I2b8545f6dd4849629037f81f48a540748e60da83
Change-Id: Id55a19e7665d8f88559c471de36e5447fb2babb0
If editor loading was aborted while the surface was already being set up,
this code would cause the following exception:
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'tools' of null
Introduced in c02c529537 (2017) because
our coding conventions at the time demanded that all `var` statements
must appear at the beginning of a function.
Bug: T287487
Change-Id: Id657d6f1e1189c17ede25362f145bb7b10f441db
