Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 6 years ago by IKhitron in topic Unwanted recet of watchlist notestamp

Unwanted recet of watchlist notestamp[edit]

Hello, Johan (WMF). There is a bad bug I detected last week. I see it is not fuxed so soon, so I believe you should add it to the Problems section. Can I explain you the problem, please, so you could decide if it is important enough for the Tech News? Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Phab ticket? And feel free to add any extra explanation here if you feel it needs more context. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
The ticket exists, of course, Johan (WMF). But I prefer to hear your oppinion just on my explanation, without the ticket, if it is OK with you. IKhitron (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Go ahead. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Imagine you have a page in your watchlist. You did not open it a couple of days, so there are a lot of unseen revisions in Special:watchlist for this page. Unfortunately, somebody likes the job you did on this page and thanks you for one of your old edits. There is a good chance that this thank will mark all the rest revisions as seen, so you will never know what was happened on the page in these days. All it needs is to click on the thank notification, to check on which edit exactly you were thanked. The old version will be opened, but the page will be marked as if you just opened the last one. IKhitron (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be a bit shorter and less like a story. I would say it like:

If you click on a notification about a thanked edit, it opens the diff for that edit. Opening the diff causes the software to think that you have seen the latest edit to the page, even if the viewed edit is older. It means that the latest edits to that page no longer appear in bold on your watchlist.

Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Of course. The story was just to convince Johan that it's important. I like your text. IKhitron (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
But this isn't a new behaviour, is it? It's just one of the many ways in which the software we build doesn't always act in perfect ways? The reason I'm asking is that Tech News is very focused on changes – good (mainly) and bad ("problems"), and as far as I know this is how things have behaved for a long time? (Which doesn't mean it couldn't be a problem, of course.)
Sorry for the late reply, got stuck with other work and didn't have time to revisit Tech News until now. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I do not know if it's new. I saw it last week. Maybe it was always, maybe it's something broken in last deployments. But I think it does not matter. There is a problem. People do not know about it. It will help them, if they will know - they will not open such notifications before checking the page itself. I really believe that "Problems" section should not avoid problems informing, if it can help. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but to me, that's unfortunate but expected behaviour. Tech News could become several pages long, listing behaviours like that unless we concentrate on what's actually changing one way or another – it's all about what we're personally familiar with since before, isn't it? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean in "expected"? IKhitron (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
So this isn't really part of my argument – that I think that Tech News would become far too long if we were to list all bugs and weird behaviours, even just the ones that affect editing and curating in one way or another – but "expected" in this case is that I, personally, would assume that visiting an edit in that history because I was thanked or mentioned would count as visting the history. Unfortunate, but expected. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Before I answer you - did you pay that opening old version marks new as seen? IKhitron (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
So, I do not understand why do you call this behavior "expected". I expect to open some old version and do not erase the watchlist. IKhitron (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I totally see the problem, and how this could be unfortunate and confusing. My point is that this is how I, personally, would expect the software to behave, and that MediaWiki has a lot of behaviours since way back that a lot of editors aren't aware of. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I see. Still don't understand why it's expected for you personally, but if it's you own, I shouldn't. So, I understand you do not think it should be in the news. For me, it's the worst bug for registered user I saw in wiki ever, taking in account that noone can see that the bug even exists. But you are the boss. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't really think it's important if I, personally, expect the behaviour or not, I'm just trying to apply the principle of what Tech News has historically reported on – which is something that has (or will) change. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sure. If it was a bug that disappears the third section in every talk page, whould you publish it? IKhitron (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
So I've been thinking about this, but I find it so difficult to believe that we would have gone for a long time with such a bug without changes and actions to address it. Or that the communities would be unaware. I mean, if it was new so they hadn't had the time to discover it ... but that takes us back to the distinction between "new"/"how MediaWiki works for good and bad". /Johan (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's very hard to recognize. You do not expect this, as you do not expect my example with third section will exist, so nobody checked. I know it just because I wroute a huge gadget for Watchlist - about 800 lines, so I check a lot every detail all the time. IKhitron (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is pointless. If you describe your problem well in Phabricator, it will likely get fixed soon. But Tech News shouldn't mention something a user deems to be a problem. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is in phabricator, again. I'm talking about warning the user. 99.9% from bugs does need such mention, because the user can understand there is a problem, if they see it. Here, they will never know that something's wrong, if we will not tell them. IKhitron (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply


In "Soon it will disable Citoid if the configuration isn't correct." what does 'it' refer to? --Ата (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ата: The citoid tool will disable itself. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply


Translation for Bengali(Bn) 100% Completed, need a review. Thanks Jhalmuri (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki version[edit]

Note that the issue links to the current version of MediaWiki, deployed this week. I'm not sure which version is the following: 1.1331/wmf.24 or 1.32/wmf.1? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

13 or 31? IKhitron (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
The latter, thanks. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, phab:T183963 is the answer. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Mea culpa, I misread wikitech:Deployments. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply