[02:50:00] [[Tech]]; 2001:2D8:E200:7E20:0:0:1B4F:30A5; [none]; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=22089890&oldid=22086194&rcid=20020032 [02:53:12] [[Tech]]; WhitePhosphorus; Reverted changes by [[Special:Contributions/2001:2D8:E200:7E20:0:0:1B4F:30A5|2001:2D8:E200:7E20:0:0:1B4F:30A5]] ([[User talk:2001:2D8:E200:7E20:0:0:1B4F:30A5|talk]]) to last version by Minorax; https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=22089892&oldid=22089890&rcid=20020035 [13:08:06] hi guys [13:10:13] '=D [17:10:05] DannyS712: sorry, I'm still not quite following here [17:10:33] if it throw's a PreconditionException, does that not mean that not only the page does not exist, but also it cannot exist? [17:10:54] i mean, it's kind of academic because this is just an example [17:23:45] Krinkle: {{done}} [17:24:23] <3 [18:48:13] anyone get any idea what "1) ContentHandlerSanityTest::testGetParserOutput with data set #0 ('xmldata')" might explode for? [18:48:27] other than, evidently, insanity [19:51:27] MatmaRex_: isn't there a magic word as well to trigger new section etc? Maybe that would be a better way for per-page thigns like NS_MAIN discussion pages, and seems to be a common practice already. Maybe that can be used as well (if not already) and e.g. consolidate the logic such that the namespace config is essentnially just a way to set that magic word on all pages in that namespace by default. Conversely, if new sections are [19:51:27] disalbed, I imagine that's a signal to disable signature/DT tools? [19:53:32] Krinkle: there is, we use that magic word too in our logic, but it's probably not used consistently, and it is also not used on archive pages (because they're not supposed to be edited) [19:54:08] we don't want to add reply links to archived pages, but we probably will want to apply visual enhancements to them (future work) [19:54:13] MatmaRex_: you mean people don't set no-edit-sections on archive pages? [19:55:00] i mean that they might sometimes add __NEWSECTIONLINK__ on discussion pages, but they will remove it on discussion archive pages [19:55:28] and we will probably want to do stuff to discussion archive pages too [19:55:32] oh. [19:55:34] okay [19:56:39] it is of course not ideal that we've "borrowed" these config settings and magic words, but it seems better than duplicating them [19:56:49] This sounds like we potentially need a new primitive then, e.g. __ENABLE_SIGNATURE__ if we want to keep the iold name, or rename wgExtraSig to wgNamespacesWithDiscussions paired with __(NO_)DISCUSSION__ [19:56:55] which might contorl NEWSECTIONLINK by default [19:57:04] (duplicating config might be okay, duplicating magic words would take forever to percolate through to all of the communities on all of the wikis) [19:57:15] yeah [19:57:20] we had a task somewhere [19:58:01] but until the "DT archive" feature comes along (future work?) it seems like maybe remving extra sig from all wikis would suffice assuming any such discussion pages already use __NEWSECTIONLINK__ [19:58:47] anyway, yeah, some kind of improvement here would help and could certainly be backward-compatible and abstracted by core. [19:58:53] Krinkle: oh, and there's also this case – https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro [19:59:39] it is a discussion page in non-discussion namespace. on this page, we want to enable the reply tool, but not the new topic tool (because you're supposed to add new topics on specific transcluded subpages only) [19:59:59] so it doesn't have __NEWSECTIONLINK__, and currently we rely on wgExtraSignatureNamespaces to enable the reply tool there [20:00:40] ah, DT supports replying to a transcluded section now? [20:00:41] thats neat [20:00:58] it did from the start! :D [20:01:32] right so this would be a case where EXTRA_SIG (DISCUSSION_PAGE) is on, but then they would add NONEWSECTIONLINK to disable the new section link this magic word could/would otherwise imply by default. [20:01:49] so that they don't have to pull the whole namespace in. [20:02:10] and likewise the editor toolbar would also listen to that page prop instead of having to interpret site config directly [20:02:32] Krinkle: the task i mentioned is https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T251653, and its various subtasks. on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T245890 there's some discussion of a new magic word [20:02:36] this would also help with parser cache metrics as we need something there as well to group discussion pages [20:02:44] and save timing [20:03:21] ideally the "is discussion page" mw.config var would be paired with DT using Parsoid for that page view, and the parsercache/savetiming metrics [20:03:41] and extra sig probably doesnt need to be confirgurable separately, but newsectionlink can still be overridden. [20:04:29] also search would probably be improved if it was able to address these [20:04:38] which is currently also namespace bound afaik [20:04:48] searching all discussions incl archives would be nice [20:05:44] i don't very much like the way things are set up right now, but i don't think we're planning to prioritize this, and honestly it seems like a minor problem to me [20:06:29] excluding VP from search I guess is fine given people already have custom search forms in place. [20:06:57] having DT modify articles and maybe break a few gadgets/styles on some less visible wikis, maybe low prio too. [20:07:22] as long as sig/reply/newsection links show up at least in all the places they're needed, I guess that's good enough. [20:08:06] the metric issue is what I'm after most , since these non-NS_1/3 discussions are quite active afaik. [20:08:43] Krinkle: so, about that, there's a neat thing we did [20:08:58] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=discussiontools-added-comment [20:09:30] this tag is added on every edit that adds a discussion comment (even if you edited in the old wikitext editor, or in any other way) [20:10:29] so you could actually use this to see how much discussion happens in non-discussion namespaces [20:10:45] and maybe identify these pages [20:12:12] RC filters also says "All content pages" / "All discussions", that's another area where it would help, but yeah, the tag is nice although equally hidden under advanced filters. [20:12:47] yeah, if/when this is prioritise we shoudl be able to plot % of pages not covered by our new flag that have discussions and use that to guide improvements. [20:12:55] in both directions even