Change 253053 had a related patch set uploaded (by Gergő Tisza):
Improve the documentation of wfExpandUrl

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/253053

See also T54253.

This task description says that "we don't actually support HTTP anymore" and @Bawolff said the same on IRC this evening. This statement feels misleading since we do support HTTP and will continue to do so indefinitely. Keeping the HTTP --> HTTPS redirects working means supporting HTTP, as far as I'm concerned.

In T118413#1806497, @PleaseStand wrote:

See also T54253.

Right, T54253 is the task where Tim lays out why protocol-relative URLs aren't really that great. Adding explicit protocols and folding this task into T54253 seems reasonable to me.

In T118413#4673048, @MZMcBride wrote:

This task description says that "we don't actually support HTTP anymore" and @Bawolff said the same on IRC this evening. This statement feels misleading since we do support HTTP and will continue to do so indefinitely. Keeping the HTTP --> HTTPS redirects working means supporting HTTP, as far as I'm concerned.

To be pedantic, I mean we no longer support serving mediawiki traffic as HTTP, so we would not want to generate any urls using anything other than https, which is what $wgServer is controlling.

When the task was written, we still allowed HTTP POST to the API (since redirects don't work there) and that could cause problems with relative URLs. Now that HTTP is completely disallowed (not from the user's POV but in the sense that our MediaWiki servers will never receive one) relative URLs are less problematic, but they still require some work to turn into absolute URLs so replacing the relative URLs in the configuration would be a performance (micro)optimization, at least.

Just wondering if it's better to continue with T207073: Test wg(Canonical)Server as defined currently (it is based on current standard) or block it on this task?

I suppor this change. Note however, that a great many user scripts and gadgets rely on the fact that mw.config.get('wgServer') is protocol-relative. Using constructs such as location.protocol + wgServer to form URLs.

Before we can fliip the switch, we'll need to survey the land (using mwgrep or https://global-search.toolforge.org/), identify the common patterns, figure out how they can be done instead in a way that works both today and after the change, then document this migration guide, and announce it through Tech News.

In T118413#6123032, @Krinkle wrote:

I suppor this change. Note however, that a great many user scripts and gadgets rely on the fact that mw.config.get('wgServer') is protocol-relative. Using constructs such as location.protocol + wgServer to form URLs.

Good catch!

What would be the sane way to support gadgets without them having to know whether wgServer is protocol-relative? Having something like wgOrigin? Or just expect them to do a manual check?

In T118413#6124147, @Tgr wrote:

What would be the sane way to support gadgets without them having to know whether wgServer is protocol-relative? Having something like wgOrigin? Or just expect them to do a manual check?

If we could do this over again, I would've made wgServer always expanded and just not support client-side awareness protocol-relativity, at least not within core. The base module could have contained an expression like location.protocol === 'http:' ? 'http:' : 'https:' in front of the mw.config assignment if the server-side is configured in a protocol-relative manner. Note that before protocol-relative support was added wgServer in JS was already always expanded and its this change that first broke lots of JS code that was not expecting that. A decade later, the opposite compat issue has emerged.

Change 253053 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@master] Improve the documentation of wfExpandUrl

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/253053