Going into the new version of Vector, we'll want to rewrite the layout
rules entirely and decouple the sidebar from the logo.
To prepare for this we will move the layout file into a legacy folder.
We also separate Sidebar styles needed for the legacy mode from the old mode.
This will allow us to make changes to the header in new Vector without having to touch
or test the legacy codebase via a new file layout.less and using the existing sidebar
code.
Bug: T246170
Change-Id: Ieb4f8f2b2f0e4f48d76a210ab30acd08e3e83bcb
In new Vector, the logo will no longer be present, so we need a more
future proof way of determining what the first portal is.
A new class `portal-first` is added (no decision about adopting BEM
has been made yet).
Cached pages will continue to use the old selector for now.
Change-Id: I6ac4493bb1f63686b48ff0c22b18d50d9fffb51d
This unblocks work on the header which will rewrite the layout
code.
This corresponds to a 0.06kb increase in CSS size, which is zero
after gzipping.
Bug: T249073
Change-Id: I23f18fc5f078da3331cad540bbaf533d348f2108
This commit is singularly focused on adding a link to the sidebar for
Vector, logged-in users. It does the bare minimum to fulfill the
requirements of T243281.
Additionally, it will help to answer the question "Do we need to use
abstractions (other than maybe different templates) to separate Legacy
Vector from Vector" by intentionally leaving out any abstractions in
order to make it easier to compare with a follow-up patch
(Ib2ef15180df73360cc1de25b893e49d415d23e1a) which does use abstractions.
It is a good thing to question whether or not we need addtional
abstractions in VectorTemplate and if they will help us as unnecessary
abstractions can have the opposite effect and just lead to further
frustrations down the road.
Therefore, I urge you, the reviewer, to let me know your thoughts! If
abstractions are viewed as not making our lives any easier, the
follow-up patches may be completely discarded and that's totally okay
with me. :) I think it's a good think to talk about now though.
Important changes:
* The VectorTemplate constructor was changed to allow injecting the
config, templateParser, and isLegacy boolean (only the config was
allowed before this commit). According to MediaWiki's Stable Interface
Policy, "Constructor signatures are generally considered unstable unless
explicitly declared stable for calling" [3]. Given that VecorTemplate's
constructor is not marked as stable, it is justified to do this without
warning according to the policy.
* Due to the above, the 'setTemplate' method is no longer needed and was
marked as deprecated.
* VectorTemplateTest was made to adapt to the new VectorTemplate
constructor. Additionally, it now extends from
MediaWikiIntegrationTestCase which my intelliphense server can pick up.
I *think* MediaWikiTestCase is just an alias to
MediaWikiIntegrationTestCase [1] and MediaWikiTestCase file was renamed
to MediaWikiIntegrationTestCase in [2], but I'm willing to change it
back if there is pushback to this.
Open questions:
* What are VectorTemplate's responsibilities? To me, it acts right now
as a controller (because it echos the full HTML string from the
template), a model (because SkinTemplate::prepareQuickTemplate sets data
on it which it later retrieves through `$this->get()`), a presenter
(because it adds data tailored for a web-centric view), and a view
(because it renders HTML strings instead of letting the view/template be
solely responsible for that). Arguably, some business logic might be
mixed in there as well (because it checks to see if a User is logged
in/has necessary permissions to show x which my changes here add to).
This might not be a problem if we keep VectorTemplate relatively small,
but will it remain this way as we progress further in Desktop
Improvements?
* How do we write tests for VectorTemplate without exposing unnecessary
public methods? For example, if I want to test the `getSkinData()`
method to see what state will be sent to the template, how should I do
this? One option might be to use `TestingAccessWrapper` to expose these
private methods which is what
`VectorTemplateTest::testbuildViewsProps()` does. Another option is to
accept this method as public. Is there a better way? Keep in mind that
even with access to this method, there might be many things to mock.
[1] 0030cb525b/tests/common/TestsAutoLoader.php (L64)
[2] Ie717b0ecf4fcfd089d46248f14853c80b7ef4a76
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Stable_interface_policy
Bug: T243281
Change-Id: I0571b041bcd7f19bec9f103fa7bccdd093f6394d
This will help with the encapsulation/reusability of each component.
* Stylesheets were renamed to reflect their respective component name
(e.g. search.less became SearchBox.less)
* Styles were isolated to each component:
* navigation.less now only contains classes that are relevant to
Navigation.mustache.
* personalNavigation.less, search.less, and tabs.less
imports were removed and made first-class styles.
* several selectors were moved into common.less
* #p-logo was moved into sidebar
* tabs.less was renamed to VectorTabs.less and styles specific to
VectorMenu.less were put into VectorMenu.less
* Storybook was updated to reflect changes
Bug: T243281
Change-Id: Idf90ee2a0f1c1d08a31cf50099c0bebc7b67e619
