|mediawiki/extensions/WikibaseQualityConstraints : master||Implement Format constraint with SPARQL|
|Resolved||Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE||T102752 [RFC] Workaround for checking the format constraint|
|Resolved||Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE||T169966 Add setting for turning off the Format constraint|
- Mentioned In
- T173696: Cache format constraint check results
T105126: [Task] Evaluate pattern constraints (safely)
T167418: Import format constraints from statements
T102759: [Story] Migrate constraints from property talk pages to statements on properties
- Mentioned Here
- T170374: Format constraint UX
T101467: Ex: WikibaseQualityConstraints - remove or sanitize regex for FormatChecker
@LucasWerkmeister interesting question. There's two things we need to check I guess:
- Write the SPARQL query and see if it performs properly.
- See if that doesn't open us to the same issues as before.
In general, Blazegraph has timeouts and memory limits on queries, and does not use PCRE engine (it uses java.util.regex AFAIK). But in theory there could be some problem there. Since it's just generic query, that problem would be present regardless of constrains, though, so we should not be a concern.
So, I'd write the queries and test if they perform well, and if so, I think it's ok to add query constraints for this one.
Can you insert a screenshot of the gadget in the issue on top?
Note: In the current version, if the check is not satisfied, the user gets shown a regex.
- We can't expect users to know regex (of our 5 example users/personas, only 1 or 2 know what it is.
- Even if you know regex, they are hard to read even for experienced people
So, usability heuristics to apply here:
- "Match between system and the real world" (we should use concepts familiar to the user)
- "Consistency and standards" – our other constraint infos are pretty well to understand, this one is not
- "Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors: Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution."
For the latter, we don't satisfy any of the user needs. We should:
- Say that it did not match [whateveritchecksfor], so like "The check for a URL failed.
- say what the problem is: It seems that your url does not have an "https://" in the begin
- suggest a fix, like "Try to add http:// or https:// in the beginning, if the URLs are otherwise correct"
So the error message would be: "Your input was checked and was not recognized as a URL