On 11-03-25 11:57 PM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
On 26/03/11 05:48, Daniel Friesen wrote:
What about the fixmes left open since it's
not clear if anything is even
still broken currently.
If it is unclear: it either need a clarification or
deserve a reversion.
We already have enough lines hiding in the fog, read to jump at you when
you get out of the path.
The fixmes for things like extra things like new
tests should be added,
but the actual commit in question isn't broken in any way.
The fixmes for things which are perfectly functional, but need
a minor bit of tweaking since they work perfectly find, but don't use
the best practice methods to do it.
Do we even have fixmes for the last two cases?
Anyway for tests, they
might be required just to make sure other developers using the feature
will use it as intended. There are always funny corner cases to handle,
specially with PHP.
I pretty much described all my commits with a fixme tagged on
them:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/81928
Waiting for me to have some time to turn uses of echo into $this->output
so that the built in --quiet will work, instead of my own custom
implementation of --quiet (I didn't know ->output existed).
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/80248
Comment gives a Tesla link saying something broke. However the Tesla
link does not identify that commit as the guaranteed commit that
actually broke code. The commit was followed up with several fixmes
already and it's unknown if the breakage is still present. The commit is
potentially perfectly functional, hit by Tesla catching a completely
unrelated commit, or marking a bug that's already fixed.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/79639
Perfectly functional, just waiting for me to have time to add a small
parser test for the behavior.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/79433
Of all my fixmes this one is the most bug like... that being said, it's
an if() anyone could add I haven't had time to do.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/79383
The commit is perfectly functional, SkinTemplateNavigation and
SkinTemplateTabs existed before and after the commit, I just replaced
SkinTemplateTabs with SkinTemplateNavigation. The fixme is for the fact
that Legacy skins are still using a hack that uses SkinTemplateTabs that
also needs to be updated... which, to be honest isn't a good reason to
revert a commit, it's pretty much orthogonal to the functionality of the
commit.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]