Add intestactions to loadQuery, auto-add XfD edit request #1091
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Amorymeltzer
added
Feature request
Things to think about
Module: morebits
Amorymeltzer
commented
Aug 7, 2020
Amorymeltzer
commented
Aug 7, 2020
Amorymeltzer
commented
Aug 7, 2020
morebits.js
Outdated
| @@ -2056,6 +2056,7 @@ Morebits.wiki.page = function(pageName, currentAction) { | |||
| watchlistOption: 'nochange', | |||
| creator: null, | |||
| timestamp: null, | |||
| canEdit: null, // true or false after load | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be better for this to be a testactions array or something, then just assign all found actions to that array. Then, separate getters can be used (return ctx.testactions.indexOf('edit') !== -1) or a bulk test (function(action) { return ctx.testactions.indexOf(action) !== -1 })
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are also concerns about initial value here. Distinguishing null from false or true could be useful if there's a chance a page object hasn't been loaded yet...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've gone and done this, still just with edit for now, using the former style.
Amorymeltzer
force-pushed
the
morebits-intest
branch
from
6bd2ae7
to
a7892f7
Compare
Amorymeltzer
force-pushed
the
morebits-intest
branch
from
a7892f7
to
b79fd07
Compare
siddharthvp
reviewed
Oct 11, 2020
Amorymeltzer
force-pushed
the
morebits-intest
branch
from
b79fd07
to
b98d6ad
Compare
siddharthvp
reviewed
Oct 19, 2020
Amorymeltzer
force-pushed
the
morebits-intest
branch
from
b98d6ad
to
f21db8d
Compare
Simple proof of concept with just `edit` being tested, but this could (should?) easily be expanded to include any relevant actions, allowing us to verify a number of actions ahead of time and catch likely errors early. For now, return editability with `canEdit`.
Currently written with repetitive `if (pageobj.canEdit())` loop. That's just because everyone but AfD has a distinct function on page load, but AfD is muddled within a bunch of other checks. Those checks are good (and should maybe be added to the others...), so we would have to break out the actual tagging into a separate function that doesn't need more loading to cut down on the ifs while still handling the loading for everyone else. PITA. Would close wikimedia-gadgets#176
Amorymeltzer
force-pushed
the
morebits-intest
branch
from
f21db8d
to
9b61d50
Compare
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There are two separate issues here, but the main question is whether adding
intestactionsto the page load query inMorebits.wiki.pageis a good idea. I think it adds value being able to confirm early whether an action can take place, and should avoid running into a hard error if handled elegantly. While this is a simple proof of concept, there's a lot we can think about making use of it. Right now, I've just addededit, but an expansive view could imagine checks formoveordelete, whether in morebits itself or available for modules to use. Even without additional checks, it'd be a helpful pre-edit early failure check. I've not tested or thought through the implications for non-load things likeappend.I've used it here to enable twinklexfd to auto-add edit protected requests when a user can't edit the page in question. With the exception of TfM other template tagging,
wgIsProbablyEditablewould have sufficed for this implementation. (technically both are making assumptions about "protection" but in practice, that's it). I'm not certain that it's easier than using promises (cc @siddharthvp) but it's probably more efficient.At any rate, I'd welcome thoughts on either side of things.