In D25987#26601, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

Uhm. I don't know why but locally I cannot find the selector.

I have a patch ready, need to clean up and test more

Can this be resolved? If not, what exactly is left in this task (apart from separate T15803)?

Should ideally use the same error message as in https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/src/applications/transactions/conduit/TransactionSearchConduitAPIMethod.php;4862eada5cd05236b81487b261668f2a2d72fad7$382-387 so one string less to translate.

In D25987#26487, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

having "User Bot" possibly everywhere? 🌈

Personally I'd decline T16052 (data duplication) and I do not yet see a need for potential new transaction types either (a comment is a comment is a comment no matter who/what made it).

always set a bool so we have an explicit value and don't just fallback to "false"

Don't bool with the bool otherwise it bools

After a conversation with valerio, I probably had misunderstood the feature scope in my comment D25363#18825: When I tested if this also matches for a user who is not the user importing the event into the calendar.
As a note to myself, the commit message says:

WE DO NOT MATCH OTHER USERS BUT THE CALENDAR OWNER.

Seems to work locally.

I am excited to announce that I personally watched @valerio.bozzolan crash Harbormaster's build and then load this awesome code into his PC computer machine and then repeat Harbormaster's build and then Harbormaster's build did not crash anymore. Therefore we decided that this awesome code is very good and as a courtesy to every Harbormaster out there will be made available for free, without any charge.

Testing welcome.
Input from CSS folks welcome.

From a quick look it seems that clip: rect(0 0 0 0) is very much the same as clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px) (make things invisible and only found by screenreaders), and clip-path: inset(50%) (covering each side by 50%) is very much the same outcome as clip-path: inset(100%).

In D25967#26245, @avivey wrote:

@aklapper want to land this?

Ah...I may take another look (jmeador: Feel of course also very free to commandeer this back to you)

Ah sorry for maybe stepping on toes, and welcome back! :)

Seems @jmeador is AWOL thus updating per last comment

seems @jmeador is AWOL thus boldly commandeering

Digging a bit further, rP600a3e3b7c2de5d93644e0410cd354ea6752949d implies that methods and files should not be indexed at all and not show up in the results. See also T16045#21931.

A quick fix would be removing the single line $query->withIsDocumentable(true); in https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/src/applications/diviner/controller/DivinerFindController.php;85f51c54303fe50ebc09ee0b652033a8a9f29ab1$45
as that'll allow results for Methods.

also manually bump version in package.json; then running npm install results in another bump in package-lock.json

Both are good questions. I only put here the diff which npm created. First question: Very likely Yes.
(Note that I have no knowledge in this area and don't even know why both package-lock.json and package.json are needed.)

Remove "return;" lines

gotta set it

like this I guess

git rebase master