[00:44:39] *nod* I'm not really proposing that as the best way to display it (I'm not sure what I think would be best for displaying a lot of languages), just demonstrating that it has enough space to give me a more practical interface :D [00:44:53] but I do think showing an existing language and the fields for a new language side by side if there's enough space would be useful when adding a new language [00:56:33] looking at https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z10012?action=edit&uselang=de which has 17 languages so far, I think it probably shouldn't show all of them unless the user asks it to. it's hard to see which languages are already there and people can't do much with the sections for languages they don't speak anyway [00:58:04] and it would be helpful if it put the current language first 😅 I'm getting bengali first but I can't even read the script for it (other than a few letters), let alone understand what it says [09:56:24] Hi all! Our next *Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Developers-Volunteers' Corner* will be held on November 13, at 18:30 UTC (https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1699900200). [09:56:26] [09:56:27] If you have questions or ideas to discuss, or you want to get in touch with the dev team, please join us! The link to the meeting is https://meet.google.com/xuy-njxh-rkw [09:56:29] [09:56:30] Hope to see you there! [09:56:32] (re @Sannita: Hi all! Our next Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Developers-Volunteers' Corner will be held on November 13, at 18:30 UTC. [09:56:33] [09:56:35] If...) [13:46:58] thank you so much Nikki for the thorough feedback! this has been on our radar, but i'll make sure to record your inputs and suggestions on phab so that we don't lose track of it. [13:48:10] i'm also happy to share some very early thinking on this if anyone wants to chime in. we would be curious to explore if it's possible to not use multiple sections in the first place (one section for each langauge). for instance, how might we display language variants contextually. where you have the name field, with all the language variants, the description field, with all the l [13:48:11] angauge variants, etc. [13:50:19] there might be space to also rely on heuristics (?) to prioritize languages people know, and display them by default, both when avaiable but also when missing (and hide everything else). take this with a grain of salt of course! this is very much early in the process 🙂 : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/96a10c13/file_54453.jpg [14:15:55] ooh that seems more like what I would have expected [14:26:49] Has Lua been added as a programing language yet? Because currently functions are split between different wiki and modules, and ate very difficult to maintain. [14:26:50] It would also be a blessing for us all if integration of such Lua functions into modules was implemented yet. [14:27:08] T307171 (re @JN_Squire: Has Lua been added as a programing language yet? Because currently functions are split between different wikis and modules, and ...) [14:27:49] also https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T121470 [14:57:04] what should I do with an implementation where I only realized after saving it that it’s conceptually broken? :) [14:57:11] (specifically Z11835) [14:57:29] it’s not connected, so it’s not doing any harm beyond potentially confusing people I guess [14:57:40] (I’ll add a correct Python implementation in a moment) [14:57:46] should I put something like “broken” in the label? [14:57:50] or just ask for it to be deleted? [14:58:09] you could prefix "(!)" like I have done with some functions/implementations (re @lucaswerkmeister: should I put something like “broken” in the label?) [14:58:23] ah, is that what it meant? [14:58:32] I saw some of those in passing but the meaning wasn’t obvious to me [14:58:52] but that just means I’m not familiar with the convention yet ;) [14:58:54] that's what I intended at least, since (BROKEN DO NOT USE) would likely obscure the rest of the label in other parts of the interface [14:59:10] and I have no clue if others have consistently adopted this yet [14:59:41] (no source on this, but given other complaints about the UI that have come up lately it seems like a reasonable next complaint) (re @mahir256: that's what I intended at least, since (BROKEN DO NOT USE) would likely obscure the rest of the label in other parts of the inte...) [15:00:22] done [15:01:52] (I’m not otherwise bothering with labels for implementations, I hope that’s okay) [15:03:59] hm, this is still annoying, I can’t even see the results for the working implementation without scrolling : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/ff88ad6b/file_54459.jpg [15:04:07] would be nice if it prioritized that one, at least now that I connected it [15:08:42] if you select the implementation in the table above it filters the tests in the table below (re @lucaswerkmeister: would be nice if it prioritized that one, at least now that I connected it) [15:08:55] oh, that’s neat 👍 [15:09:50] hm, I might have broken something… I split Z11722 into two functions, Z11722 and Z11834 (after realizing that they behave differently for some words, and moved some of the existing test cases to the new function (e.g. Z11734)it looks fine in the views of the old and new functions (both only show the right tests now), but when looking at an implementation for the old function (Z11728), I still see both sets of te [15:10:12] I wonder if I needed to disconnect the tests from the old function first? [15:14:46] I don't think so