- Means add-on authors should not need to inject any code in their build
- Should be more flexible - we can export multiple libraries if we wish,
and don't have to worry about require() being clobbered by old add-ons.
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.
