Relink won’t work either. Not with any new syntax.
If I had known that by making those plugins, I was signing myself up for perpetual updates with every major release of TW, I… I probably still would have done it. I have a problem.
But those plugins will have to wait a minute. I’m working on other stuff right now. Taking a TW break for a while.
I agree with this. I strongly prefer wrapping of code blocks by default. I don’t like having to use the horizontal scrollbar on all the codebody: yes tiddlers.
But if that is the way it has to be, I can configure it in all my wikis post 5.4
The only complaint I have so far is that the shadow $:/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/options/codewrapping text was changed from pre-wrap to pre in the core. This was an issue for me, because probably due to some of my modifications the pre setting doesn’t look well with longer code lines flowing out of the tiddler area to the right. Everything is as it used to be on the pre-wrap setting.
If the default setting was changed on purpose, I’m alright with that, I can imagine why the no wrap could be better as default.
Edit: I found the PR that changed this default: [v5.4.0] Update configuration defaults by Jermolene · Pull Request #9107 · TiddlyWiki/TiddlyWiki5 · GitHub
There is some discussion too. So if you disagree with the new default – Lets us know.
But is did not change the default shadow. I can not find the PR, that changed this value. … That’s strange.
IMO the default should be “Wrap long lines in code blocks : Yes” … We only needed to change this one for easy testing the PR.
Long lines should look like this. … So if your wiki shows text outside of the tiddler, you need to check your Style sheet settings.
The default can be changed in
ControlPanel → Appearence → Theme Tweaks → Warp long lines in code blocks
Tested on my main wiki and nothing looks broken.
Not having the tidgraph problem reported above.
Pre-release documentation for Calls says:
Calls can be used in filters. The text is not wikified which again means that the parameters will be ignored.
Testing using <<now>> macro with : vs = param handling:
<$let fmt="YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ss0XXX">
#literal unnamed param<br><<now YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ss0XXX>>
#literal named param using `:`<br><<now format:'YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ss0XXX'>>
#variable named param using `=`<br><<now format=<<fmt>>>>
#filter with unnamed param<br><$list filter="[<now YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ss0XXX>]"><<currentTiddler>></$list>
#filter with literal named param using `:`<br><$list filter="[<now format:'YYYY0MM0DD0hh0mm0ss0XXX'>]"><<currentTiddler>></$list>
#filter with variable named param using `=`<br><$list filter="[<now format=<<fmt>>>]"><<currentTiddler>></$list>
produces this output:
literal unnamed param
20260224084305886
literal named param using :
20260224084305886
variable named param using =
20260224084305886
filter with unnamed param
20260224084305886
filter with literal named param using :
20260224084305886
filter with variable named param using =
Filter error: Missing [ in filter expression
Thus, calls in filters using the unnamed param or : literal named param syntax still work, even though Calls seems to say otherwise.
Multi-valued variables clarification: do filter operators each have to be individually updated in order to support MVVs?
The MVV docs say “Certain filter operators can accept multi-valued parameters: function Operator, title Operator”. Does that mean that these are the only operators that will understand MVVs, and everything else treats them as single values?
(If so, that severely limits their possibilities…)
2 posts were split to a new topic: V.5.4.0 prerelease - link-to-tabs Plugin Link Icon has Wrong Colour
Most operators operate on input and don’t make much use of parameters. Only parameters need special support for handling MVV. Which operators did you have in mind which you want to pass MVV as parameter?
A few notes I’ve found running the updater against my wiki. 5.4.0 RSOEs my wiki currently:
[Error] Script error.
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:5208)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:5260)
(anonymous function) ($:/plugins/flibbles/vis-network/vis.js:39)
[Error] ReferenceError: Can't find variable: alt
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/widgets/transclude.js:462)
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js:691)
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/widgets/element.js:83)
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js:691)
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/widgets/widget.js:72)
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/startup/render.js:72)
(anonymous function) ($:/core/modules/startup/render.js:74)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:7640)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:7587)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:7597)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:7777)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:6782)
(anonymous function) (upgrade-4.html:7775)
_boot (upgrade-4.html:7784)
Global Code (upgrade-4.html:7796)
I’ll see if I can get a minimal reproducing case for this (this is a private wiki).
2 posts were split to a new topic: V5.4.0 prerelease - Quick Image Plugin causes EditTemplate Problem
If by any chance you use the markdown plugin, this error about the alt variable may be related to an issue I just patched.
Aha. Well, if the parameters are what need to be manually updated, then that explains why the operators I tried weren’t working, because they were all in the format of operator(var)! Doing some quick testing now shows that yes, ones that don’t require parameters (like uppercase[]) are working as I expect them to.
(My initial test was a nested jsondexes & jsonget combo, which I thought should work fine because Jeremy had used jsonget in examples for his initial MVV presentation. Didn’t work, a jsonget(var1),(var2),[text] treated them as single values. My “sanity checks” of addsuffix(var) / addprefix(var) failed likewise. Guess I know why now…)
5 posts were split to a new topic: V5.4.0 prerelease - Performance Regression Using List Filters in ViewTemplate
I’ve just frozen the current version of Relink to TiddlyWiki <=v5.3.8. There are too many finnicky changes to wikiparsing for me to put in the time making Relink compatible pre and post v5.4.0.
But since I’m doing that, it means Relink might take advantage of new TW mechanics. But I’ve got some questions about it. I don’t have time to upgrade Relink just yet, but I’m looking at the core code now, and it doesn’t look like it’s in good enough shape yet for a new and improved relink—the kind you all deserve.
This would be great… if it’s done right. Relink goes to a lot of trouble making its own wikiparser hybrids because it could never rely on converting to a parse tree and back.
It’s looking like this feature is only good for when the parse tree is exactly the same as it was. I’m seeing a lot of “start” and “end” stuff. But those get pretty useless to me quickly if Relink needs to 1) swap out a title with one of a different length, 2) change quotation on some attribute, or 3) downgrade a wikilink into a transclusion or something like that. Everything will get offset.
Is tracking offset just something I’ll need to contend with?
It doesn’t look like the parse tree remembers the kinds of quotes used. When you guys are “reverting” parse trees back into text, are you changing all the quotes the user chose to use? Or are you looking at the offsets?
One thing people have always disliked about Relink is that it uses startup modules to inject new code into bulkops—the wikimethod module that introduces the core relinking behavior for tags and list.
Relink does this because there is no other mechanism to do so properly. So Relink will still be blasting parts of bulkops and making itself incompatible with any other plugins that might want to introduce their own renaming behavior independent of Relink.
Is this fine with everyone? Or do we want to update this?
These two “features” are the two reasons Relink can never truly be a 100% relink solution. \define makes the wikitext too unpredictable. And $depth makes it impossible to know where parameters are coming from, and thus if they should be relinked.
\define is an old dog whose served us well, and I also know it probably can’t be removed yet. But $depth… ohhh. I’ve got bones to pick with that attribute
I know @jeremyruston agreed to deprecate it, at least for the <$parameters> widget (<$slot> doesn’t have a better alternative yet). Can we do that? Can we remove this monstrosity? I stand by my assertion that no one is using it, because no one knows how. It’s a terrible antipattern.
Edit: Sorry to everyone I’m bothering by asking. I know a lot of these questions are ones I could answer myself if I dug into the source more, but I’m in the middle of an unrelated time-constrained project, and might not have time to really jump into Relink again until after v5.4 releases.