Module talk:OSM

Error with no linktext

@Polyglot: Nice module! This is a really interesting idea. I just noticed that the module will produce an error if you don't supply frame.args.linktext and the page also has a Wikidata entry. Should there be a default display value instead of a red error message? (Also, maybe "display" or something would be a more elegant parameter name than "linktext"?) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the error appearing myself. Yesterday all tests were fine, because the Module was only present on nl.WP. I'll have to find a better way to simulate a page with no link to a wikidata entry.

Oops, you're talking about something else. I considered the linktext parameter as mandatory. This means it can't be used in templates for references though. I guess I'll have some more coding to do... Maybe simply text? I'll add a parameter to have it return simply text without link as well. --Polyglot (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyglot: If linktext is really compulsory, then you could output a more informative error message, e.g.:

if not frame.args.linktext then
	error('No "linktext" argument provided', 2)
end

Or if you would rather that the error didn't show up in Category:Pages with script errors then you could do the same thing with wikitext:

if not frame.args.linktext then
	return '<strong class="wikitext">No "linktext" argument provided</strong>'
end

Or alternatively you could make the subpage name the default display text:

local display = frame.args.linktext or mw.title.getCurrentTitle().subpageText

Whichever you think works the best. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I like "linktext" better than "text", although I think "display" is better than both. (That's just my personal preference, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: I'll start changing it to display. You seem to be the goto guy if it comes to Lua scripts! :-) I was wondering. I copied the code to test the scripts from Module:Wikidata on nl.WP, but it has an incredible amount of duplication, which makes it error prone to work with. Isn't there a more elegant way to accomplish testing? I would have written more tests if it were more practical to do so. I'm a big believer in TDD. --Polyglot (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unit testing

@Mr. Stradivarius: I tried to create a module to ease unit testing, but it doesn't get transcluded. Do you see a way to make that work?--Polyglot (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyglot: Where are you trying to transclude it? We usually put the test cases at "/testcases" (so Module:OSM/testcases in this case) and then run the tests on the talk page (so Module talk:OSM/testcases. We already have a couple of unit test modules to make things easier - my favourite is Module:ScribuntoUnit. The other main one is Module:UnitTests. See Module:Dts/testcases and Module talk:Dts/testcases for a recent example that I wrote. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you just want to do the testing on nlwiki, then that might be the best solution. Maintaining different sets of test cases for different wikis is quickly going to get unwieldy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]