On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Raluca Stavro wrote: Idea 1: ====== Add a new #panelheaderold macro in macros.vm and replace all calls of #panelheader to #panelheaderold in your panels (easy to do with a XWQL query and 3 lines of scripts). Slowy migrate panels to new syntax. Note: ===== Actually in the future we need to add a new {{panel}} macro, something like: {{panel style=".." title="…"}} … content here … {{/panel}} Idea 2: ====== Create a custom Panel wiki macro (give it a name other than "panel"!), search for: {{velocity}}{{html}}#panelheader….#panelfooter{{/html}}{{/velocity}} (use a regex) Replace with your panel macro. Nope Thanks -Vincent

On 06/13/2012 01:52 PM, Raluca Stavro wrote: So this means that none of the macros in macros.vm are API? Which means that there is no API to make a panel header consistent with the panel headers of the default panels? Thanks, Anca

On 06/13/2012 02:44 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: 3.2 M1 https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/2e4b54267b9bf4048c14fdf14b6a… http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6504 It's interesting that the API Breakage section of the 3.2M1 release notes says only "[TODO]" http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotesXWikiEnterpris… ... :) Anca

On 06/13/2012 09:17 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: Do the panels really need the {{html}} wrapper? If no, then you must remove it. If yes, then you should consider rewriting them using wiki syntax only, then remove the {{html}} wrapper. If you can't do that, then just move the wrapper inside the panelheader/footer. You can do that automatically with a script. I don't understand this. Are you saying that in macros.vm #panelheader uses {{html}}? That's not true, the panelheader/footer macros only use wiki syntax, not {{html}}. The problem isn't that nested {{html}} macros don't work, but that wiki syntax doesn't work in {{html}} without wiki="true". The macros still work for both xwiki/1.0 and xwiki/2.x panels. What doesn't work is putting the whole panel content inside a {{html}} block, without any wiki parsing. The problem was that there was a misunderstanding of the macros behavior. The macros were supposed to work well in wiki syntax. Initially, that meant the only xwiki syntax, which did mix HTML with the rest of the wiki and velocity syntax. When new wiki syntaxes were introduced and the macros were updated, the behavior remained the same: the #panelheader/footer macros work well in both xwiki/1.0 and xwiki/2.x syntaxes. But pure HTML isn't really a wiki syntax. The fact that for a few releases the macros worked in pure HTML embedded in an xwiki/2.0 document, but not directly in a xwiki/2.0 document, was a bug, not a contract. Unfortunately some developers did rely on this bug. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

On 06/13/2012 06:09 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: I wouldn't call it a bug, because if we do so, then we can argue that it's a bug that has been there for at least one major cycle, and that macros.vm is still not stable according to http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6062 so we might still have "bugs" about it (and that is for about 2.5 major cycles, which is a bit too much from my point of view). What I would say about this is that apparently we don't know / have a convention about how should the macros in macros.vm be used: with syntax interpreted or not, in an html macro or not. This is where the confusion comes from: while the old panelheader macro _needed_ html macro (potentially with syntax activated), the current one needs _only wiki syntax_ (potentially in an html macro). There is a context which satisfies both (html macro with wiki syntax activated) but it was not documented anywhere, I'm not even sure it is _the rule_ for macros in macros.vm, so people used "what it worked", in this case a plain simple html macro whose wiki parameter defaults to false. The wysiwyg macros in macros.vm, for example, I would say they need to be called in a html macro with syntax switched off, but it's just a guess, looking at the code. I think we need to: 1/ make a decision about what is API from macros.vm 2/ make a decision about what _was_ API from macros.vm and keep it working as it used to 3/ document how an API macro should be used, either by having a rule or by at least writing in its own documentation in macros.vm what context it expects (note that even if we document it, if we cannot enforce it, chances are that people will use "what it works"...) To me, all these above are unclear and until they are, from how it feels to me, it's very hard to call something a bug or a backwards compatibility break. Thanks, Anca