* Add description input to fields dialog
QLineEdit seems like the best option, as it saves space and motivates users to keep their descriptions concise.
* Add setDescriptions to note initialization script
Went for the extra function instead of including it in setFields to prevent potential add-on breakages.
* Add tooltip next to field name if description is set
* Refactor code according to suggestions
Set default tooltip placement to right instead of bottom
Use .get() for fld["description"]
Fix tab order in fields dialog
Swap out abbreviation "desc" for full length name to keep consistency
* Update Protobuf and Rust for description
Add description to notetypes.proto and schema11
Co-authored-by: RumovZ <RumovZ@users.noreply.github.com>
* Fix tooltips not updating with description
Remove redundant variable tooltipOptions
Update previousTooltip within reactive function
* Move LabelDescription out of LabelName
Co-authored-by: Henrik Giesel <hgiesel@users.noreply.github.com>
* Decrease icon size and fix alignment
Co-Authored-By: Henrik Giesel <hengiesel@gmail.com>
* the new key needs to be cleared from fields, not the notetype itself
Co-authored-by: RumovZ <RumovZ@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Giesel <hengiesel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Damien Elmes <gpg@ankiweb.net>
We're getting an enum instead of an int in Qt6
normal/reversed have been renamed to ascending/descending; no add-ons
appear to be using the old versions.
`counts.learning` includes interday learning cards, so it is not
suitable to determine how many cards from the (intraday!) learning queue
are already included in the learning count when updating it.
* Only collect card stats on the backend ...
... instead of rendering an HTML string using askama.
* Add ts page Card Info
* Update test for new `col.card_stats()`
* Remove obsolete CardStats code
* Use new ts page in `CardInfoDialog`
* Align start and end instead of left and right
Curiously, `text-align: start` does not work for `th` tags if assigned
via classes.
* Adopt ts refactorings after rebase
#1405 and #1409
* Clean up `ts/card-info/BUILD.bazel`
* Port card info logic from Rust to TS
* Move repeated field to the top
https://github.com/ankitects/anki/pull/1414#discussion_r725402730
* Convert pseudo classes to interfaces
* CardInfoPage -> CardInfo
* Make revlog in card info optional
* Add legacy support for old card stats
* Check for undefined instead of falsy
* Make Revlog separate component
* drop askama dependency (dae)
* Fix nightmode for legacy card stats
Python's regex engine performs pathologically on regexes like
'<!--.*?-->' when fed a large string of repeating '<!--' clauses.
Thanks to JaimeSlome / security@huntr.dev for the report; closes#1380.
Solved by switching to the Rust implementation, which does not suffer
from this issue.
entsToText(), minimizeHTML(), and the old regex constants have been
removed; they do not appear to be used by any add-ons.
The 'avoid showing learning card twice' logic is now only applied
when the next learning card was already due to be shown. This'll mean
there will be cases where a learning card does get shown twice near
the end, but it makes the behaviour easier to reason about, for both
us and end users.
Matches should arrive in alphabetical order. Currently results are not
capped (JS should be able to handle ~1k tags without too much hassle),
and no reordering based on match location is done. Matches are substring
based, and multiple can be provided, eg "foo::bar" will match
"foof::baz::abbar".
This is not hooked up properly on the frontend at the moment -
updateSuggestions() seems to be missing the most recently typed character,
and is not updating the list of completions half the time.
There were a few issues going on here:
- If some operation had invalidated the queues, they were subsequently
recreated with a call to .get_queues() in the undo handling code. This
could happen after the changes to the card had already been reverted,
leading to a queue state that didn't match our expectations.
- More generally, it's not safe to assume our mutations will apply
cleanly after the queue has been rebuilt. The next card will vary
depending on the number of remaining cards when interspersing cards of
different types, and a queue-invalidating operation will have changed
the learning cutoff.
So rather than rebuilding the queues on demand, we now check that they
already exist, and were created at the time we expect. If not, we
invalidate them and skip applying the mutations, and a subsequent
refresh of the UI should rebuild the queues correctly.
As part of this change, the cutoff snapshot has been moved into the
normal answer update object.
One possible downside here is that adding a note during review may cause
a newly due learning card to appear when undoing a different review.
If this proves to be a problem, we could potentially note down the
learning cutoff and apply it when queues are rebuilt later.
Context: https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/more-cards-today-question-about-v3/12400/10
Previously, interday learning cards and reviews were gathered at the
same time in v3, with the review limit being applied to both of them. The
order cards were gathered in would change the ratio of gathered learning
cards and reviews, but as they were displayed together in a single count,
a changing ratio was not apparent, and no special handling was required
by the deck tree code.
Showing interday learning cards in the learning count, while still
applying a review limit to them, makes things more complicated, as
a changing ratio will result in different counts. The deck tree code
is not able to know which order cards will appear in, so without changes,
we would have had a situation where the deck list may show different counts
to those seen when clicking on a deck.
One way to solve this would have been to introduce a separate limit for
interday learning cards. But this would have meant users needed to
juggle two different limits, instead of having a single one that controls
total number of (non-intraday) cards shown.
Instead, the scheduler now fetches interday cards prior to reviews -
the rationale for that order is that learning cards tend to be more
fragile/urgent than reviews. The option to show learning cards
before/after/mixed with reviews still exists, but it applies only after
cards have been capped to the daily limit.
To ensure the deck tree code matches the counts the scheduler gives,
it too applies limits to interday learning cards first, and reviews
afterwards.
In the old HTML editor, filenames were % escaped before feeding them to
beautifulsoup, causing bare ampersands to be left alone. The new HTML
editor reads content from the DOM, where a bare ampersand has been
transformed into an &, and that gets saved back into the field,
so the media check now needs to deal with it for images as well.
https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/causing-problems-with-image-names/12171
Interday learning cards are now counted in the learning count again,
and are no longer subject to the daily review limit.
The thinking behind the original change was that interday learning cards
are scheduled more like reviews, and counting them in the review count
would allow the learning count to focus on intraday learning - the red
number reflecting the fact that they are the most fragile memories. And
counting them together made it practical to apply the review limit
to both at once.
Since the release, there have been a number of users expecting to see
interday learning cards included in the learning count (the latest being
https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/feedback-and-a-feature-adjustment-request-for-2-1-45/12308),
and a good argument can be made for that too - they are, after all, listed
in the learning steps, and do tend to be harder than reviews. Short of
introducing another count to keep track of interday and intraday learning
separately, moving back to the old behaviour seems like the best move.
This also means it is not really practical to apply the review limit to
interday learning cards anymore, as the limit would be split between two
different numbers, and how much each number is capped would depend on
the order cards are introduced. The scheduler could figure this out, but
the deck list code does not know card order, and would need significant
changes to be able to produce numbers that matched the scheduler. And
even if we ignore implementation complexities, I think it would be more
difficult for users to reason about - the influence of the review limit
on new cards is confusing enough as it is.
