action=query list=checkuserlog API response is inconsistent with other action=query responses
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

querying logevents returns something like this:

{
    "warnings": {
        "query": {
            "*": "…"
        }
    },
    "batchcomplete": "",
    "continue": {
        "lecontinue": "20150511204708|66314508",
        "continue": "-||"
    },
    "query": {
        "logevents": [
            {
                "logid": 66314515,
                "ns": 2,
                "title": "User:Jimbo Wales/Facebook/picture.css",
                "pageid": 0,
                "logpage": 14655653,
                "params": {},
                "type": "delete",
                "action": "delete",
                "user": "Jimbo Wales",
                "timestamp": "2015-05-11T20:47:24Z",
                "comment": ""
            }
        ]
    }
}

By contrast, Querying the CheckUser log returns data like this:

{
    "batchcomplete": "",
    "query": {
        "checkuserlog": {
            "entries": []
        }
    }
}

Note the extra layer of nesting in checkuserlog. This makes building API clients more complicated. :(

lfaraone created this task.Jul 19 2015, 4:28 PM
lfaraone updated the task description. (Show Details)
lfaraone raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
lfaraone added a project: CheckUser.
lfaraone added subscribers: lfaraone, Anomie.
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJul 19 2015, 4:28 PM
lfaraone updated the task description. (Show Details)Jul 19 2015, 4:30 PM
lfaraone set Security to None.

Changing this would be a backwards compatibility break, which isn't something to do lightly. But this also seems likely to be a little-used module, so it's not necessarily impossible.

To proceed, we'd need to try to determine how many clients are actually using checkuserlog to weigh the advantage of improved consistency against the disadvantage of breaking all existing clients.

Changing this would be a backwards compatibility break, which isn't something to do lightly. But this also seems likely to be a little-used module, so it's not necessarily impossible.

To proceed, we'd need to try to determine how many clients are actually using checkuserlog to weigh the advantage of improved consistency against the disadvantage of breaking all existing clients.

I suspect the number is quite low :)

Krenair added a subscriber: Krenair.Feb 7 2016, 5:37 AM

Where can we find such statistics?

Restricted Application added subscribers: JEumerus, StudiesWorld. · View Herald TranscriptFeb 7 2016, 5:37 AM