r96206 MediaWiki - Code Review archive

Repository:MediaWiki
Revision:r96205‎ | r96206 | r96207 >
Date:18:51, 3 September 2011
Author:siebrand
Status:reverted (Comments)
Tags:
Comment:
Revert r96172. This broke replies on Special:NewMessages, possibly more.
* Focus didn't go to edit area on reply.
* Spinning ball was active all the time after clicking reply, and only stopped after reload of the page or saving the reply.
Modified paths:
  • /trunk/extensions/LiquidThreads/LiquidThreads.php (modified) (history)

Diff [purge]

Index: trunk/extensions/LiquidThreads/LiquidThreads.php
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
8383
8484 $wgResourceModules['ext.liquidThreads.edit'] = $lqtResourceTemplate + array(
8585 'scripts' => array( 'js/lqt.toolbar.js' ),
86 - 'dependencies' => array( 'ext.liquidThreads', 'ext.wikiEditor', 'ext.wikiEditor.toolbar.i18n',
 86+ 'dependancies' => array( 'ext.liquidThreads', 'ext.wikiEditor', 'ext.wikiEditor.toolbar.i18n',
8787 'jquery.wikiEditor.toolbar', 'jquery.wikiEditor.dialogs',
8888 'query.async', 'jquery.cookie')
8989 );

Past revisions this follows-up on

RevisionCommit summaryAuthorDate
r96172Correct spelling of dependencies...hartman07:09, 3 September 2011

Comments

#Comment by MaxSem (talk | contribs)   10:17, 4 September 2011

While it may fix some immediate problems, I suggest track them down instead of simply getting rid of dependency specification and praying that everything will continue to work accidentally.

#Comment by Siebrand (talk | contribs)   10:53, 4 September 2011

I don't really understand why this rev is now fixmed. Now I'm responsible for getting what fixed exactly? Lqt was working finish in a production environment before r96172 and it works fine after this revert.

#Comment by MaxSem (talk | contribs)   13:59, 4 September 2011

Blind reverts aren't a solution. The real culprit in r95631 fixmed too.

#Comment by Siebrand (talk | contribs)   14:22, 4 September 2011

Please explain how you define "blind revert".

#Comment by Catrope (talk | contribs)   14:27, 4 September 2011

You reverted this rev, and that unbroke it. You didn't really seem to have looked at the revision itself, since it corrects a typo; obviously the real breakage must've been in another rev.

Status & tagging log