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
