Proof of concept: while flex is – well – flexible, it feels like
this should be possible with some good old block containers and
margins. It's pixel-perfect in my test.
Bug: T288465
Change-Id: I1458900fff197e08ce318398524a3cf2b6b9ee2a
- Change description text according to ticket
- Make sure link to template page opens in new tab
- Add missing placeholder text
Bug: T272487
Change-Id: Ie8189e9cb9db5908e8fc5fc8bf7ff20df5595094
Method names have been changed in I8fa47ed, assuming these are
private. It looks like some hacks exist out there. Let's make
these peoples life easier.
Change-Id: I63c80761fe06e2f3a4bb104fe3e8c17d1c7faa02
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
When I press the button to expand the input field for
undocumented parameters, it needs to be focused. Otherwise I
have to click it manually all the time.
We probably forgot to list this as an acceptance criteria when
working on Ic5dcd36.
This also replaced a bit of JavaScript with CSS. I do this
mainly because I found the mixture before (one piece was
hidden via JavaScript, another via CSS) a bit confusing.
Bug: T272487
Change-Id: I0cbee63c65a37f2f1860bde007c1e5c8408ba006
This makes sure the corresponding top-leve part is selected in
the list on the left when navigating the main area on the
right.
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: Id1b398e1786c4099d5b14fe88dd21a106269096b
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
Contains:
* Full test coverage (I believe) for the filter functionality in
…OutlineTemplateWidget.
Also some TODOs for missing tests I believe are critical.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I2ac5add8e189d501d3558bbd4854cb92155bcb96
This comes with a few significant changes:
* A whole bunch of places in the code that focus and highlight
an element in the old sidebar consider the new sidebar now.
* Same when e.g. the toolbar at the bottom needs to know which
part is selected. This is read from the new sidebar now.
* To make this possible I had to merge the small helper class
we introduced in I7bc73cc back into the dialog.
It's helpful to understand how the event flow works:
* You click a template name. This does nothing (does not select
the element). It only triggers an event.
* The event is catched by the outer container that manages
all parts. From there all elements are unselected, and one
selected. This call is internal and should not trigger
another event.
Bug: T285323
Bug: T288827
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: I4a2d2b83cf2691423d4b0e6f4487228fa3c7b56d
This is mostly, if not exclusively visual, at the moment. The
actual state is still managed by the old sidebar.
I made the element OptionWidgets for convenience. This gives us
all the functionality we need (primarily setSelected and
isSelected), without to much clutter. However, I didn't made
the container a SelectWidget. This comes with to much stuff we
don't need at this level, e.g. cursor key navigation.
Bug: T285323
Bug: T289043
Change-Id: I20dbd2ba23ceaa9125947b25e037c0bb3c91a471
Not only do we want to make sure getUniquePartId() always starts
at 0 and increments correctly, it should return a number (and
not e.g. "part_0").
I realize the getTitle() test is also testing functionality from
mw.libs.ve.… (can be found in the file ve.utils.parsoid.js).
This is intentional. What we care about at this point is not a
library but the very specific functionality of a very specific
method we use quite a lot in code we touch.
Bug: T289560
Change-Id: I43c1d00dacf27a68b16f62ecca4adda22f437391
Similar code elsewhere checks whether this.root is set
(e.g. ve.ce.FocusableNode.prototype.onFocusableSetup).
And code here checks whether this.surface is set.
Bug: T289201
Change-Id: If07dc75ca76f2d171bc2eae83be10083d95096f8
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
