Page MenuHomePhabricator

Reuse EventEmittingButton from termbox
Open, HighPublic

Description

  • move EventEmittingButton to shared repo
  • use primaryprogressive modification of the button

Notes

Patch-For-Review:

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptAug 12 2019, 11:02 AM
Pablo-WMDE updated the task description. (Show Details)Aug 12 2019, 11:07 AM

That EventEmittingButton component uses a link (<a>) with href="#" and styled as a button. This is an anti-pattern and poses accessibility issues. If we need a button, then let's use a semantically correct element and use links if we actually want to link to something.
This will also make our component simpler.

After consulting with @Jakob_WMDE the motivation to use an <a> tag in termbox was that there is apparently one situation where there SSR needs to render an actual link, which should then act as a js-button in the frontend.
We don't have these circumstances here, so we can use a button straight away.

Change 530865 had a related patch set uploaded (by Michael Große; owner: Michael Große):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: Create reusable button component

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/530865

Michael claimed this task.Tue, Aug 20, 9:44 AM
Restricted Application added a project: User-Michael. · View Herald TranscriptTue, Aug 20, 9:44 AM
Michael moved this task from To do to Doing on the Wikidata-Bridge-Sprint-3 board.

Change 531963 had a related patch set uploaded (by Matthias Geisler; owner: Matthias Geisler):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: Modify EventEmittingButton

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/531963

Change 531727 had a related patch set uploaded (by Matthias Geisler; owner: Matthias Geisler):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: copy EventEmittingButton

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/531727

Change 532292 had a related patch set uploaded (by Matthias Geisler; owner: Matthias Geisler):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: Aligments with OOUI

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/532292

Change 532293 had a related patch set uploaded (by Matthias Geisler; owner: Matthias Geisler):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: button tag switch

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/532293

Apologies for popping in unsolicited, but it looks like this task and its patches took a strange turn.

The original idea was to start sharing the component with Termbox (says so in the title/description), which I think is great. Then, based on the a tag vs button tag difference the idea of reuse was quickly discarded. Arguably slightly different requirements, fine.

Now there are patches up copying the Termbox component into the Bridge code base, changing it so that it fulfills requirements from both Termbox and Bridge (afaict), then further improving it. What's the point?

There are two options that make sense to me:
a) Don't use the Termbox component, have a Bridge button component that strictly does what's needed for Bridge
or
b) Reuse and share the component between the code bases as planned when this task was written.

What's there at the moment looks like a lose-lose situation: unused code from Termbox in Bridge, double the maintenance, Termbox not benefiting from the improvements.

As written above, I think trying to generalize the Termbox EventEmittingButton to be used everywhere in Bridge is an approach that is flawed in its premises. This creates an overly complex component that does multiple jobs (Link and pure Button) and tries to conform to multiple conflicting styles (Termbox and Bridge/OOUI).

IMHO, the better approach is to incrementally implement a reusable button in bridge that follows the OOUI design correctly and for the use-cases where we need it. That currently means the Publish button, later we will add the Cancel button and likely more. This button component could be extracted into a component library, when such a thing exists.

Termbox can then reuse this button if they have a use for a button with these OOUI styles. (That might be the case for the publish button, based on the storybook).

Meta note: To be honest I do not like, how this discussion is now starting – putting somewhere a -2 and start a discussion without a appropriate pointing on the concrete thing where you see the problems.

As written above, I think trying to generalize the Termbox EventEmittingButton to be used everywhere in Bridge is an approach that is flawed in its premises. This creates an overly complex component that does multiple jobs (Link and pure Button) and tries to conform to multiple conflicting styles (Termbox and Bridge/OOUI).

Why you think it's flawed in its premises? Where do you see the growing complexity? (It would be very helpful where you think it's to much in the code, so we might fix that [together]. I do not think it's fair just to say it and not point on it) Or do try to say in a sneaky way Termbox did a bad job?
To the concrete points:

    • I do not see that OOUI, Bridge and Termbox conflicts - Termbox/Bridge can simply just not reuse OOUI less directly at this point in time. Actually what you are suggesting means currently we making Termbox and Bridge also excluding each other, which is the exact opposite of the ground idea of this ticket. The consequence is, that we increase 2 to 3 implementations for the same thing.
  • I do not think that it is to hard for devs to be aware that a component can have a different HTML-tag, especially when he just a minor influence on the appearance or behavior. But:
    • since OOUI uses a a-tag as well as Termbox, we can simply rollback to the given behavior, if you do not like it.
    • the reason, why it's there is just, because I agreed with you, that from a semantic perspective button is in the most cases the superior choice, but there is a very good reason why OOUI and Termbox have simply a a-tag (just in terms of non js-users to make the ui still working)
    • the a-tag is not optional for Termbox - otherwise the SSR behavior is not working as intended anymore. (See the edit button for that in Termbox when you disable your js)
IMHO, the better approach is to incrementally implement a reusable button in bridge that follows the OOUI design correctly and for the use-cases where we need it. That currently means the Publish button, later we will add the Cancel button and likely more. This button component could be extracted into a component library, when such a thing exists.

I do not get this, because those buttons existing already in the EventEmittingButton of Termbox (and more things). Why to get rid of them to reimplement them and make then the library unusable for Termbox?

Termbox can then reuse this button if they have a use for a button with these OOUI styles. (That might be the case for the publish button, based on the storybook).

I guess, I pointed out why this not working with the current suggestion.

My suggestion for this: we can go with corrected EventEmttingButton of https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/532292/ or we going all the way up to https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/531963/ . I like to pitch the 2nd one of course (since it gives us much more button types) but I can live actually with both.

Maybe my post above was a bit too concise, so here is a longer version of my reasoning. Also, some update.

I think we should not try to extract a single component that replaces all usages of the EventEmittingButton component in Termbox.
From my point of view there were two main reasons for that:

1. Termbox and WikidataBridge/OOUI use significantly different styles for the conceptually same elements (which is fine!)
Example 1:
The Termbox cancel button has different hover behavior and click/active styles than a frameless, icon only ButtonWidget

Example 2:
The Termbox framelessProgressive button has different hover behavior and click/active styles than a frameless, icon only ButtonWidget

Example 3:
The Termbox publish button uses a different icon than from what is available in OOUI

Termbox and OOUI seem to share styles for the primaryProgressive button.

2. Termbox uses links as buttons in order to be able to create a Link in SSR which is then overloaded by client-side js.
The understanding I got from conversation was that there is a single instance where that functionality was used.
But apparently these buttons are also used as true links (i.e. regardless of SSR) in the AnonEditWarning

Conclusion
Based especially on reason 1, I think we should not try to replace all buttons in Termbox with a shared one, because that would require us to integrate two styles for the same conceptual button into one component.
Also, in order to keep the component simple we should not switch between two so conceptually different HTML tags as <button> and <a> but use one consistently.
Since we will apparently not get around using these "buttons" as links, it makes most sense to use <a> tags for this component and to look to OOUI for how to make "buttons" with them that are still accessible.

Further we should focus on what is needed for the current story, that is the publish button, i.e. primary progressive button.

That is why I suggest adjusting the I55c95b7d3e6a5c594139c228a083c4c69fa2c0ed patch as described above and to proceed incrementally as we pass through the stories.

Example 1:
The Termbox cancel button has different hover behavior and click/active styles than a frameless, icon only ButtonWidget

Termbox cancel button: https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/wikibase-termbox-storybook/?path=/story/eventemittingbutton--cancel
 OOUI frameless, icon-only ButtonWidget: https://doc.wikimedia.org/oojs-ui/master/demos/?page=widgets&theme=wikimediaui&direction=ltr&platform=desktop#ButtonWidget-frameless-icon-only

True (this count for Example2 as well) and therefore is a patch (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/532292/), which I mentioned above, because the original EventEmittingButton is wrong here in general. He should be stick to the OOUI schema there.

Example 3:
The Termbox publish button uses a different icon than from what is available in OOUI
Termbox publish button: https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/wikibase-termbox-storybook/?path=/story/eventemittingbutton--publish
OOUI Icons: https://doc.wikimedia.org/oojs-ui/master/demos/?page=icons&theme=wikimediaui&direction=ltr&platform=desktop

Publish is actually the special case, since it was just invented for Termbox. I ask already @Charlie_WMDE about that. But I do not see this in our department, what to do with it. I think the decision is here is done by UX.

  1. Termbox uses links as buttons in order to be able to create a Link in SSR which is then overloaded by client-side js.

The understanding I got from conversation was that there is a single instance where that functionality was used.
But apparently these buttons are also used as true links (i.e. regardless of SSR) in the AnonEditWarning

Indeed, it is a link and according to OOUI it should be. And as I mentioned earlier, I have no problem if it stays as <a>

Conclusion
Based especially on reason 1, I think we should not try to replace all buttons in Termbox with a shared one, because that would require us to integrate two styles for the same conceptual button into one component.
Also, in order to keep the component simple we should not switch between two so conceptually different HTML tags as <button> and <a> but use one consistently.
Since we will apparently not get around using these "buttons" as links, it makes most sense to use <a> tags for this component and to look to OOUI for how to make "buttons" with them that are still accessible.
Further we should focus on what is needed for the current story, that is the publish button, i.e. primary progressive button.

I do not see a good argument to split this component on a tag level from Termbox or OOUI (aka button vs a), even if we can have a context aware variant of it( aka button and a). If this context awareness is not wished I would like more to stay close then to OOUI and Termbox (where, if I see it correctly, we agree?). This whole was more playing your direction of have a 'better' semantic button.
I do not get the point to reimplement stylessheets, which are already there. Especially not when the new ones have a different behavior then those of OOUI (please see code review of https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/530865/ for that). Another thing we have now to take into account is also, that actually we can have all basic button types, which may aids UX. That does mean in my eyes, a vote of UX( aka @Charlie_WMDE) here is highly needed.

I agree that should focus to get it done.

I still have my problems https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/530865/ , which I mentioned on Monday in that mail to you as well as yesterday in the specific code review. To repeat the biggest tow concerns here again:

  • it's not based on the original EventEmittingButton, which makes things much harder to track iff there any changes
  • got rid of styles, which are not primary and progressive and the publish button, which makes a reuse by other project practically impossible

Also: I still not exactly understand your problems to permute over the styles (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/531963/), in a very similar way like OOUI. Intentionally I was also ment to play in your wish to align more with OOUI. The side effect of is this, that to implement a fully new button takes very short amount of time. (for example when @Charlie_WMDE ask me for the trash button it tooks me maybe 5 minutes, to have all done)

hello everyone, after getting some help from @Matthias_Geisler_WMDE in understanding this i must say, i think this is mainly a tech decision as well as product @Lydia_Pintscher would you take a look at this?

I think the implication for UX/product would be that the permutation-option allows for quicker button creation in the future (which is good since we'll definitely need more buttons and different kinds of buttons) and from my perspective that also means, i can look at the finished product quicker. The other thing that comes to mind is that we don't have to maintain the "same" buttons in two places which makes things easier as well, and I don't need to specify which of the "same" type of button i mean.

I don't claim to understand all of the implications of doing it one way or the other, so there is no judgement on that from my side. This is simply my preference, judging from what this would mean for my work.

But overall, as long as the look, feel and functionality in the end is as specified by me, I don't mind too much where the buttons come from and what went into developing them. I want things we do to be reusable and sustainable, but ultimately the details on the implementation are of a technical nature and as long as the result is the same this should be a engineering/product decision imo.

Hope this helps somewhat.

I think the implication for UX/product would be that the permutation-option allows for quicker button creation in the future (which is good since we'll definitely need more buttons and different kinds of buttons) and from my perspective that also means, i can look at the finished product quicker. The other thing that comes to mind is that we don't have to maintain the "same" buttons in two places which makes things easier as well, and I don't need to specify which of the "same" type of button i mean.

I do not understand what is meant by this paragraph or to what it refers. Could you elaborate?

Side note: OOUI has two general classes for buttons. In both, a tag name is configurable, but ButtonWidget is for general, client-handled buttons (<span> by default), whereas ButtonInputWidget is for forms (<button> by default).

To be honest, I’ve lost track of the different types of buttons we’re discussing here, so I can’t judge if all their needs could/should be served by one implementation. Which ones are we talking about?

Side note: OOUI has two general classes for buttons. In both, a tag name is configurable, but ButtonWidget is for general, client-handled buttons (<span> by default),

My understanding was that ButtonWidget uses an <a tabindex="0"> as the clickable element, wrapped in a <span> for styling purposes. But I think it is quite possible that I missed something or misunderstood some functionality. How would I change the tag name?

whereas ButtonInputWidget is for forms (<button> by default).
To be honest, I’ve lost track of the different types of buttons we’re discussing here, so I can’t judge if all their needs could/should be served by one implementation. Which ones are we talking about?

Right now we are talking buttons based on a <a>, i.e. something similar to ButtonWidget. While I still maintain that it would be best to have button based on <button> as the general default, we are going to need one based on <a> to implement the buttons in Anon edit warning and I'm too exhausted to have this exact discussion again when the time for implementing that component comes. That is why I'm fine with having only one component for now that is based on a <a>.

In the longer term future we are going to need both, as a Button based on a clickable <a> or <span> cannot submit a form. But neither Termbox nor bridge will submit forms without js, so it doesn't matter for now.

But I think the main issue of the discussion is whether this button we are implementing here should be conceptually based OOUI's ButtonWidget or Termbox' EventEmitingButton. I outlined above my reasoning as to why I think it should be based on ButtonWidget. I just renamed that button in my patch to make this more clear, though I would want to wait with investing more time into implementing the review comments until we decided whether we actually want to go with this approach.

My understanding was that ButtonWidget uses an <a tabindex="0"> as the clickable element, wrapped in a <span> for styling purposes. But I think it is quite possible that I missed something or misunderstood some functionality. How would I change the tag name?

The tagName config property (or static property) controls the tag name of the surrounding <span>; you can also pass in a custom $button in the config to override the default <a>. (The tagName is processed by the Element base class, the $button by the ButtonElement mixin.)

alaa_wmde triaged this task as High priority.Thu, Sep 5, 1:45 PM

I think the implication for UX/product would be that the permutation-option allows for quicker button creation in the future (which is good since we'll definitely need more buttons and different kinds of buttons) and from my perspective that also means, i can look at the finished product quicker. The other thing that comes to mind is that we don't have to maintain the "same" buttons in two places which makes things easier as well, and I don't need to specify which of the "same" type of button i mean.

I do not understand what is meant by this paragraph or to what it refers. Could you elaborate?

I'll try. I was trying to write down the impact this decision might have, purely from a UX perspective (i.e. without considering any other aspects). What I am saying here is that, being able to reuse buttons seems to me to have more advantages than the other option (again, purely from my/UX perspective) or at least I do not see the downsides. If there are any for UX, please do let me know. Hope this helps.

alaa_wmde moved this task from Backlog to Todo: Focus on the User-Alaa board.Thu, Sep 5, 1:55 PM

Had a brief chat with @Lydia_Pintscher @Charlie_WMDE - the following may (or may not) be considered obvious but I'm making the expressed mutual understanding explicit to eliminate other interpretations. Given the task of this ticket and to reduce complexity, focus is limited to the "primaryprogressive" button as an example.

  • the save button used in bridge is supposed to be visually identical to the one seen in OOUI
  • the actual OOUI elements can not reasonably be used inside of bridge for technical reasons
  • as far as the devs understand it, the "primaryprogressive" button implemented for termbox back when was supposed to be visually identical to the one seen in OOUI
  • devs want to avoid redundantly implementing components, are tempted to reuse ("share") the component from termbox inside bridge

The consequence of this would be: discrepancies between the shared "primaryprogressive" button and OOUI specification be detected (now and in the future) and fixed, these changes would then apply to both termbox and bridge alike. From the dev point of view this is perceived as something desirable, from the product and UX side it still seems open for debate apparently.
@Charlie_WMDE wants to clarify that with @Hanna_Petruschat_WMDE. The concrete question: were any of the discrepancies between the termbox "primaryprogressive" button and its OOUI equivalent intentional or are they unintentional and merely a result of an imperfect copy job by dev?
The outcome of this determines if this component can really be reused and shared or not.

Specimen

@Pablo-WMDE Thank you for the overview. I have still not understood for the specific case you mentioned, is there a discrepancy between the OOUI primary progressive button and the one that was implemented for termbox?

@Charlie_WMDE at this particular one there is very tiny difference in the active-focus behavior.

Pablo-WMDE added a comment.EditedThu, Sep 5, 6:15 PM

Thanks for following up on this @Charlie_WMDE

is there a discrepancy between the OOUI primary progressive button and the one that was implemented for termbox?

I would not know but I heard rumors there are. The good thing is it does not really matter and for the sake of argument let's assume that yes (effectively anticipating such a situation in the future), because it helps illustrate the gravity of the decision.
What we really want to find out is if the premise described in bullets #1 and #3 are factually correct and if consequently it is at developers' discretion to declare this one and the same component.
Despite the inconveniencing nature of such demand it would really be of great value for us to reach a definite verdict on this for it determines which technical approaches to take are valid ones.

@Pablo-WMDE From my perspective bullet 1 is definitely correct. I can not speak for bullet 3. That is probably in the heads of the termbox devs and @Hanna_Petruschat_WMDE Depending on the correctness of bullet 3, we would have an answer to this question

if consequently it is at developers' discretion to declare this one and the same component.

Despite the inconveniencing nature of such demand it would really be of great value for us to reach a definite verdict on this for it determines which technical approaches to take are valid ones.

I agree. anything else from my side to help move this further?

Pablo-WMDE added a comment.EditedMon, Sep 9, 3:50 PM

Talked with @Hanna_Petruschat_WMDE ragarding "bullet 3", i.e. the reasoning back when during termbox. She confirmed that the "primaryprogressive" button implemented for termbox is indeed supposed to follow the OOUI specification and all discrepancies can be considered unintended (and consequently bugs to some extend).

Hanna however was kind enough to point a key difference between the "primaryprogressive" button as used in termbox and the one we can observe in the bridge spec and the related OOUI demo for "process dialog": the "primaryprogressive" itself exhibits rounded corners (border-radius: 2px) but these are removed from the element when used as a part of a header ("processDialog actionWidget" in OOUI terminology) as intended in bridge.

We now have clarity on the requirements' side but face a bit of a technological challenge. OOUI implements this by implementing a selector specific to this case (button inside dialog). For our vue components we, so far, followed the BEM approach and the component's appearance are organized in so-called modifications ("primaryprogressive" is an example of this) and we usually refrain from influencing these modifications' styles from the outside but rather create a new component modification. Parents typically call for one concrete modification of a component. So how do we tackle this?

I finally got the time to pay attention to this task. I'm apparently too late to the party, for which I deeply apologize, esp. to @Pablo-WMDE and @Matthias_Geisler_WMDE who did ping me before in person to have a look, which I failed to do for reasons

tl;dr Our goal is to not not create a delay for bridge hike on this technical matter as well as maximize the outcome of the discussions started here about sharing components in the future across hikes. So let's copy-paste and modify the component for the hike for now, and in-parallel put this/new task in Trailblazing-Exploration board to research and experiment with sharing components across projects.


After reading all the comments, I will follow up on this from where @Pablo-WMDE has left it, with much appreciated effort to collect feedback and clarify the ambiguous with @Charlie_WMDE and @Hanna_Petruschat_WMDE. The conclusions, as far as the appear to the reader, are:

  1. "primaryprogressive" button component introduced in termbox was meant to be(have) exactly the same as OOUI per UX requirement.
  2. It easy to reason about making that button component a shared component, where shared here can be as far as sharing one and only code base for that component.
  3. However, in bridge case, the button need to appear inside a dialog header, in which the previously developed component in termbox has no account (nor had the requirement) for the extra special styling (no-corners) as OOUI button has when placed inside a dialog header.

From engineering side, options I can see are one of two:

  1. [cheapest for the moment, my recommendation] do not share the component yet. Either start from scratch, or copy-paste the component from termbox into bridge and modify it in bridge as necessary. Even if that means the only modifier addition for border-less version.
  2. [not that cheap initially, might be cheaper for future] extract termbox component into a shared one, and add the modifier for the border-less in that version. That component now has its own stable interface for the outside world, in which adding the border-less version is viewed as just another feature to serve another user.

Option 2 seems to have much higher initial cost and decision making efforts for the following reasons:

  1. it seems there's yet no official/reliable place out there for sharing vue components. This means we will have to figure out where to host these components, how to build, test and release them for use by external users on our own.
  2. we are still not that confident of whether that shared component would stand the test of time, in terms of its requirements and use-cases from UX side. It appears to be the same at the moment, but it is still quite simple so far. The risks here are:
    • more requirements to be added in the future to serve different needs, making the component over-complex
    • other projects creating their own components as the simple component cannot serve them enough, rendering this shared component redundant before it has proven to be useful for multiple users

both risks mentioned in 2 are quite small .. though their impact on lost effort due to high initial cost of setting up things for it can be big.

For bridge hike, option 1 is recommended for now as it:

  • has low cost atm following the simplest "reusing" technique, a.k.a copy-paste, of the existing component from termbox, and customizing it for its needs in the simplest way possible
  • postpones decisions such as: what that first shared component should do to serve different needs, how to be designed to do so, and how to do it technically (build/test/release), to a point in time when we are more confident about investing the initial costs having bigger decision to back it up such as: building a style-guide and conforming to it all future/past designs (which I feel we might want to do it at some point, but needs a little more discussions and alignment)
  • avoids overloading bridge hike with dealing and figuring out such technical matters, which sounds more appropriate to be addressed separately outside of its scope, in a trailblazing dedicated to look into it
alaa_wmde moved this task from Todo: Focus to Done on the User-Alaa board.Mon, Sep 9, 8:36 PM

Hanna however was kind enough to point a key difference between the "primaryprogressive" button as used in termbox and the one we can observe in the bridge spec and the related OOUI demo for "process dialog": the "primaryprogressive" itself exhibits rounded corners (border-radius: 2px) but these are removed from the element when used as a part of a header ("processDialog actionWidget" in OOUI terminology) as intended in bridge.
We now have clarity on the requirements' side but face a bit of a technological challenge. OOUI implements this by implementing a selector specific to this case (button inside dialog). For our vue components we, so far, followed the BEM approach and the component's appearance are organized in so-called modifications ("primaryprogressive" is an example of this) and we usually refrain from influencing these modifications' styles from the outside but rather create a new component modification. Parents typically call for one concrete modification of a component. So how do we tackle this?

This is relevant for the story overall, though unrelated to the different considerations underlying the two approaches discussed above. It seems to me that this modification, while affecting the button, is conceptually more part of the header component. While we could add a configuration option for the styling of each corner to the button, I'm not sure that adding the overhead of this interface is worth it, especially since this would amount to the parent writing direct CSS into the child. In this case, I find it to be more simple and honest to leave this just to the parent component's CSS and to utilize the cascade there. I found some discussion about this issue, but nothing authoritative. There seems to also be the approach of adding an extra class, but I'm not sure that this approach works with our setup.

Pablo-WMDE moved this task from Peer Review to Doing on the Wikidata-Bridge-Sprint-5 board.
Pablo-WMDE added a subscriber: Matthias_Geisler_WMDE.

Change 536016 had a related patch set uploaded (by Pablo Grass (WMDE); owner: Matthias Geisler):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: copy EventEmittingButton

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536016

Change 536137 had a related patch set uploaded (by Pablo Grass (WMDE); owner: Pablo Grass (WMDE)):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: mend EventEmittingButton per OOUI

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536137

Change 536138 had a related patch set uploaded (by Pablo Grass (WMDE); owner: Pablo Grass (WMDE)):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: add squary option to EventEmittingButton

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536138

Change 536139 had a related patch set uploaded (by Pablo Grass (WMDE); owner: Pablo Grass (WMDE)):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: vertically align EventEmittingButton text

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536139

Change 536225 had a related patch set uploaded (by Michael Große; owner: Michael Große):
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: Make EventEmittingButton accessible if used as button

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536225

Change 536016 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: copy EventEmittingButton

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536016

Change 536137 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: mend EventEmittingButton per OOUI

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536137

Change 536138 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] bridge: add squary option to EventEmittingButton

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/536138