This needs optgroup support in OOUI DropdownInputWidget, as far as I can see, that's not supported so far, right?

While OO.ui.DropdownInputWidget would benefit from having support for optgroup, I don't think this particular page needs it. My understanding here is limited, but I feel that the Common delete reasons heading is unnecessary and the functionality of the dropdown would be obvious to the user even without it.

A part of the UI is slightly tricky, when you select two revisions you get a table of radios.

Single revision	Multiple revisions

I was thinking of using a [[ https://doc.wikimedia.org/oojs-ui/master/demos/?page=widgets&theme=wikimediaui&direction=ltr&platform=desktop#ButtonGroupWidget | ButtonGroupWidget ]] instead.

In T117794#3091129, @Prtksxna wrote:

While OO.ui.DropdownInputWidget would benefit from having support for optgroup, I don't think this particular page needs it. My understanding here is limited, but I feel that the Common delete reasons heading is unnecessary and the functionality of the dropdown would be obvious to the user even without it.

I agree, I don't think it's necessary here as long as it's always those five possible options.

In T117794#3423998, @Prtksxna wrote:

A part of the UI is slightly tricky, when you select two revisions you get a table of radios.

Single revision	Multiple revisions

I was thinking of using a [[ https://doc.wikimedia.org/oojs-ui/master/demos/?page=widgets&theme=wikimediaui&direction=ltr&platform=desktop#ButtonGroupWidget | ButtonGroupWidget ]] instead.

Not sure if repeating four ButtonGroupWidgets with same Button labels (”(do not change)”/“Visible”/“Hidden”) is best representation.

Why is “Suppress data[…]” set to bold?

In T117794#3424619, @Volker_E wrote:

I agree, I don't think it's necessary here as long as it's always those five possible options.

Yep, anyway that issues is resolved - T135028: DropdownInputWidget: Provide optgroup support

Not sure if repeating four ButtonGroupWidgets with same Button labels (”(do not change)”/“Visible”/“Hidden”) is best representation.

Me neither. Any suggestions?

Why is “Suppress data[…]” set to bold?

I suppose its to signify that these setting should be used with caution. We could obviously take another approach.

@Prtksxna For multiple revisions, I guess, having the labels first and introducing at least a slight zebra row coloring similar to CheckboxMatrix should make it better.

@Prtksxna Did you get to any start code-wise here?

In T117794#4850819, @Volker_E wrote:

@Prtksxna Did you get to any start code-wise here?

Its been a while, and I think I did. But I can't find any corresponding abandoned Gerrit patches or local branches, sorry! 😞

Here's what I came up with:

Single revision	Multiple revisions
	With radio: With select:

Here's the new files:

In T117794#5988689, @BrandonXLF wrote:

Here's the new files:

Hi Brandon, thanks! That should better be in Gerrit instead, as it is impossible to see the differences here.

Change 582505 had a related patch set uploaded (by BrandonXLF; owner: BrandonXLF):
[mediawiki/core@master] Convert Special:RevisionDelete to OOUI

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/582505

Reviewing the patch for this. Attaching image here for reference at gerrit.

Basically I think the current wording for that message of "(do not change)" doesn't work now that it is no longer a table structure and "Do not change" looks cleaner. Example with this changed:

Another image for reference in the gerrit change:

I think the "Visible" and "Hidden" for the suppress option in the Multi form should be replaced with "No" and "Yes" respectively.

Change 892052 had a related patch set uploaded (by Dreamy Jazz; author: Dreamy Jazz):

[mediawiki/core@master] Follow-up fixes for SpecialRevisionDelete OOUI conversion

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/892052

I've merged the "Convert Special:RevisionDelete to OOUI" change and made a follow-up to address non-blocking issues. Because the issues were not blocking and the change is old, I wanted to avoid another merge conflict by merging now in a state that would be okay to be deployed to wikis.

I would appreciate a quick review and merge for that my follow up (ideally before the train split). Happy to field questions and make changes quickly. Without the change some of the label messages used are not as intuitive after the OOUI conversion.

Change 582505 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@master] Convert Special:RevisionDelete to OOUI

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/582505

Change 892052 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@master] Follow-up fixes for SpecialRevisionDelete OOUI conversion

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/892052