[00:43:47] Yeah, looks okay to me 🤷‍♂️ (re @u99of9: Is it working for others? For me it worked for about 5 minutes, but then when I added this new test Z30048 it said I had too ma...) [00:45:04] Ah… maybe not… (re @Al: Yeah, looks okay to me 🤷‍♂️) [00:52:03] Sometimes... yeah... (re @Al: Yeah, looks okay to me 🤷‍♂️) [03:41:11] If anyone wants to help speed it up, Z29975 could do with a javascript implementation. (re @u99of9: Z30000 is in place, but I've left a mess of untested and approximated helper functions, so it will take a while to make it work!) [11:01:18] I trust Z30056 will serve the general purpose. (re @u99of9: If anyone wants to help speed it up, Z29975 could do with a javascript implementation.) [11:02:20] Those ones will be likely removed (re @u99of9: When you get to the very special bit of the Volunteers' corner, note that the software may have trouble with a couple of the vot...) [11:20:52] I think only the vote for 0 is invalid. In the other cases, the initial first preference is clear. You might want to expand “1 - 5” to “1 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5”, but repeated votes for eliminated options should be immaterial. (re @Sannita: Those ones will be likely removed as invalid) [11:23:52] Yes the intent of "1 - 5" was explained clearly in the edit summary. (re @Al: I think only the vote for 0 is invalid. In the other cases, the initial first preference is clear. You might want to expand “1 -...) [12:41:36] Yeah, my script can deal with both these situations! Thanks for raising it. (re @u99of9: When you get to the very special bit of the Volunteers' corner, note that the software may have trouble with a couple of the vot...) [12:42:09] I think that looks good. The current draft is here: https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Catalogue/Proposal (re @Npriskorn: @vrandecic how does this look to you? [12:42:10] Which symbols is suitable in the logos for each category?) [12:42:26] I am not sure about the logos, but I am sure folks will have ideas [12:50:03] Also the VC function writing may be quite frustrating if Python is still so inconsistent. Here's Z13573 at the moment: : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/817c0bae/file_75794.jpg [14:21:17] It’s odd that it became the preferred implementation, and odd that it remains preferred 🤔 (re @u99of9: Also the VC function writing may be quite frustrating if Python is still so inconsistent. Here's Z13573 at the moment:) [14:24:31] I just picked it at random to test, so I don't have any issue with this particular function/implementation. Now that the test runs have fully resolved, it appears that python is quicker than JS on all the tests, so it seems right to be first. (re @Al: It’s odd that it became the preferred implementation, and odd that it remains preferred 🤔) [14:26:49] Ah… it was slower when I looked, by a considerable margin 🤷‍♂️ (re @u99of9: I just picked it at random to test, so I don't have any issue with this particular function/implementation. Now that the test ru...) [14:27:44] Yes, inconsistent results show soon after nudging. (re @Al: Ah… it was slower when I looked, by a considerable margin 🤷‍♂️) [14:31:34] This was before nudging… and now there’s a timeout adding 14 and 30. Shall we disconnect it? (re @u99of9: Yes, inconsistent results show soon after nudging.) [14:33:37] I don't think we should... to be consistent we would disconnect every single python implementation. I'd rather python services got restarted or whatever the fix usually is when python goes down. (re @Al: This was before nudging… and now there’s a timeout adding 14 and 30. Shall we disconnect it?) [14:36:12] Yeah, there should be a big red button for that 😇 (re @u99of9: I don't think we should... to be consistent we would disconnect every single python implementation. I'd rather python services g...) [14:36:37] https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/7997e047/file_75795.jpg [14:36:37] one fails, the other works in 117 ms.... this is a weird version of the issue : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/96cb080d/file_75796.jpg [14:40:53] Yeah, that was what I was observing. (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z13521?call=%7B%22Z1K1%22%3A%22Z7%22%2C%22Z7K1%22%3A%22Z13521%22%2C%22Z13521K1%22%3A%7B%22Z1K1%22%3A%22Z13518%22%2C%22Z13518K1%22%3A%2214%22%7D%2C%22Z13521K2%22%3A%7B%22Z1K1%22%3A%22Z13518%22%2C%22Z13518K1%22%3A%2230%22%7D%7D) (re @u99of9: one fails with a 9000 ms evaluator timeout, the other [14:40:53] works in 117 [14:40:54] ms.... this is a weird version of the issue) [14:54:17] I don't see evidence of a global Python outage. Is some larger theme emerging around the broken Python implementations? If so, please file a task; I'm out today but, if no one else has taken a look by tomorrow, I'll get on it. [14:56:56] No, it seems to be pretty random, successive calls to the same function evaluate normally or timeout. I’ve added a brief note to *T406848.* (re @wmtelegram_bot: I don't see evidence of a global Python outage. Is some larger theme emerging around the broken Python implementations? ...) [14:57:23] Thank you! [15:00:24] Yes, random, but there have been problems for every python implementation I've looked at, so I think it's very widespread. (re @Al: No, it seems to be pretty random, successive calls to the same function evaluate normally or timeout. I’ve added a brief note to...) [17:11:50] I connected the composition which has 2 test that pass and disconnected the 2 implementations for which none of the test currently pass on Z10638 [17:13:24] Hi all! Our next *Volunteers' Corner* will be held today at 18:30 UTC (https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1764613800). [17:13:24] 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 [17:13:25] Hope to see you there! [17:13:53] (that's in 90 minutes, give or take, sorry, I totally forgot to make the message last Friday) [17:28:21] I'm probably not going to be able to join. [17:28:22] I have decided to begin work on porting the hatnote and about templates from enwiki as HTML fragments. I saw a user who tried using the about template in wfwiki but it didn't exist 😅 [17:30:00] I'm sorry you won't join, but there's always the recording (hopefully it will be up by Wednesday) [19:29:39] What is the favourite name out of the voting. Have you counted it already. [19:29:54] yes we can share the results [19:30:02] give me one second [19:30:28] == Round 1 == [19:30:30] Number of votes: 191 [19:30:31] # Wikigenerator 55 [19:30:33] # Abstract Wikipedia 54 [19:30:34] # Wikiabstracts 33 [19:30:36] # Proto-Wiki 28 [19:30:37] # Multilingual Wikipedia 21 [19:30:39] Lowest number of votes in this round: 21 [19:30:40] Eliminated candidates: Multilingual Wikipedia [19:30:42] == Round 2 == [19:30:43] Number of votes: 191 [19:30:45] # Abstract Wikipedia 62 [19:30:46] # Wikigenerator 61 [19:30:48] # Wikiabstracts 34 [19:30:49] # Proto-Wiki 34 [19:30:51] Lowest number of votes in this round: 34 [19:30:52] Eliminated candidates: Multilingual Wikipedia, Wikiabstracts, Proto-Wiki [19:30:54] == Round 3 == [19:30:55] Number of votes: 191 [19:30:57] # Abstract Wikipedia 100 [19:30:58] # Wikigenerator 91 [19:31:00] The winner is... Abstract Wikipedia [22:00:27] I Like the Name. What IS the Url for the Name. Have you decided IT so far. At Wikimedia commons what has two words the URL IS different to the Name. [22:33:06] I think that what makes most sense with that name is probably, abstract.wikipedia.org.