[02:11:03] Yes, this is fair. I've just looked through the list of functions returning object types (https://www.wikifunctions.org/w/index.php?search=%3A+%22Z8K2+Z1%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 - thanks for the query Al ), and in most cases the test writers have chosen a more specific equality function for their result validation. So I guess there [02:11:03] is a balance [02:11:04] here between making it easier for low-expertise test writers by prompting them with Z13052 as a good first nudge default, or leaving it blank so that more experienced test writers can determine their own specific ideal. I guess most editors writing functions which return objects will fall in the latter category. So I'm happy to continue/defer the discussion on this [02:11:04] one. (re @Fe [02:11:05] eglgeef: When making most tests you know what the output object will look like) [06:00:53] Can anyone spot what's wrong with this Z10112 or tell me why it's impossible? [08:42:49] It should “work” if you change the return type to Z1. In my experience, a reference to a type is not always interpreted as a type. See Z16829, Z18626. Apparent duplicate: Z21169. This is discussed in *T363623*. (re @u99of9: Can anyone spot what's wrong with this Z10112 or tell me why it's impossible?) [10:20:56] Wow, yes, your forecast came true. I've merged the duplicate to the original and set the output to Object until the bug is resolved. (re @Al: It should “work” if you change the return type to Z1. In my experience, a reference to a type is not always interpreted as a typ...) [10:28:51] I’m not sure we have a bug for it… I haven’t raised one (because I thought it made sense at the time). Given that T363623 has been waiting for the better part of a year, maybe separate tasks are called for 🤔 (re @u99of9: Wow, yes, your forecast came true. I've merged the duplicate to the original and set the output to Object until the bug is resol...) [10:32:23] I could undelete the duplicate to leave it with Type type to aid the bug report? [10:35:03] I don’t think that’s necessary. We have revision history. (re @u99of9: I could undelete the duplicate to leave it with Type type to aid the bug report?) [10:37:15] Z21174 is another case… (re @u99of9: I could undelete the duplicate to leave it with Type type to aid the bug report?) [10:37:57] okay, I'll use that for the report (re @Al: Z21174 is another case…) [10:39:48] …and Z23319, I guess. You’ve been busy! 🙏 [10:45:40] Reported as T389183 [10:48:04] This week's latest functions list is going to be full of weird stuff! (re @Al: …and Z23319, I guess. You’ve been busy! 🙏) [11:10:19] I’m rather fond of Z23356 as a generic testing function… if only I had a use for it! 😉 (re @u99of9: This week's latest functions list is going to be full of weird stuff!) [11:13:03] Yes, that fits the bill! [11:32:57] Can you get it to make a working test for this: Z23393 (re @Al: I’m rather fond of Z23356 as a generic testing function… if only I had a use for it! 😉) [11:40:24] Similarly Z23397 works up the top, but the test doesn't. (re @u99of9: Can you get it to make a working test for this: Z23393) [11:44:15] T389194 (re @u99of9: Similarly Z23397 works up the top, but the test doesn't.) [11:49:30] Not easily. I think Z20s fail to enter code (and Z803/4 Z828 also fail). (re @u99of9: Can you get it to make a working test for this: Z23393) [12:01:46] If I type it into Try this function it works fine - and that composition uses Z803 (re @Al: Not easily. I think Z20s fail to enter code (and Z803/4 Z828 also fail).) [12:14:30] Yeah, Z803 will return references to a Z20 but not keys from a Z20… so once you get a Z20, there’s nothing you can do with it, as far as I can tell. [12:30:22] But I didn't try to do anything with it did I? I was just counting how long the list was? (re @Al: Yeah, Z803 will return references to a Z20 but not keys from a Z20… so once you get a Z20, there’s nothing you can do with it, a...) [12:35:18] Yes, but presumably that’s a code function and the references fail to convert to (code) objects, I guess. (re @u99of9: But I didn't try to do anything with it did I? I was just counting how long the list was?) [12:44:15] (Even Z801 and Z811 fail with a list of test cases) (re @u99of9: But I didn't try to do anything with it did I? I was just counting how long the list was?) [20:07:53] I tried to fetch (through Z6821) the wikidata item *Q1247524* but I noted that the fetcher function doesn't fetch the date, even if it is present in Wikidata. Is this a known bug? [22:20:42] I think you are right that some types of statement value are not yet supported. David would be better placed to let us know about the plans. (re @dvd_ccc27919: I tried to fetch (through Z6821) the wikidata item Q1247524 but I noted that the fetcher function doesn't fetch the date, even i...) [22:32:28] This was mentioned in either the March or February volunteer's corner I think (re @u99of9: I think you are right that some types of statement value are not yet supported. David would be better placed to let us know abou...) [22:39:05] Only certain types of statement are supported [[Wikifunctions:Support for Wikidata content#Notes about Wikidata statements]]. Dates are not included. (re @dvd_ccc27919: I tried to fetch (through Z6821) the wikidata item Q1247524 but I noted that the fetcher function doesn't fetch the date, even i...) [22:40:31] Ok thank you (re @Al: Only certain types of statement are supported [[Wikifunctions:Support for Wikidata content#Notes about Wikidata statements]]. Da...) [23:38:45] Something that might be nice is having an "intentionally disconnected" state for implementations, to differentiate between implementations disconnect for not being reviewed and implementations disconnected for not being good implementations