Page MenuHomePhabricator

Add wl_timestamp to the watchlist table
Open, Stalled, NormalPublic5 Story Points

Description

There have been many requests for this (or something similar to this) and this will be needed with the eventual goal of easy expiring of watchlist items.

It should be decided if this should be a timestamp of when the item was added to the watchlist or if this is the timestamp the watchlist item was last watched / touched? This will be important when tags are possible? When I add a tag should the timestamp stay the same or change? Page moves should also be considered.

This has been extracted from my comment at T124752#1998193

Details

Related Gerrit Patches:

Event Timeline

Addshore created this task.Feb 5 2016, 4:05 PM
Addshore raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
Addshore updated the task description. (Show Details)
Addshore added subscribers: Aklapper, Addshore, StudiesWorld.
Addshore updated the task description. (Show Details)Feb 5 2016, 4:08 PM
Addshore set Security to None.
RobLa-WMF updated the task description. (Show Details)Feb 5 2016, 5:39 PM
Tobi_WMDE_SW triaged this task as Normal priority.Feb 10 2016, 9:45 AM
Tobi_WMDE_SW edited a custom field.Feb 10 2016, 1:48 PM
Addshore moved this task from Backlog to Doing on the TCB-Team-Sprint-2016-02-17 board.

Change 271502 had a related patch set uploaded (by Addshore):
WIP Add timestamp field to watchlist db table

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/271502

Tobi_WMDE_SW moved this task from Incoming to Sprint Ready on the TCB-Team board.Apr 19 2016, 11:40 AM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Luke081515. · View Herald TranscriptApr 20 2016, 8:17 PM
Danny_B moved this task from Unsorted to Add / Create on the Schema-change board.Apr 29 2016, 10:19 PM
Addshore moved this task from Unsorted 💣 to Active 🚁 on the User-Addshore board.
Addshore changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Mar 21 2017, 9:35 AM

How stable is this? Stable enough to deploy the schema on WMF before merging, or are there people that doesn't agree this extra field?

daniel added a subscriber: daniel.Apr 25 2017, 10:49 AM

I think we want this field, but I'm worried that the intended semantics is still unclear.

In the patch by addshore, there is a comment that says "Timestamp the entry was created or last updated". Is there agreement that this is the intended semantics, as opposed to the intended time of expiry? If the timestamp is the creation/update time, additional information would be needed in the database to allow different e4xpiry periods to be implemented. Setting an expiry timestamp would allow different expiry periods to be implemented without any additional info in the database.

Technically, itb is not necessary to decide this before doing the schema change. However, re-interpreting the meaning of an existing database field is risky. I'd prefer to have a clear agreement on the semantics beforehand.

So as I see this the semantics described in the patch still hold true.
Having the date that a watched item was last added to the watchlist / modified allows users to easily remove very old watchlist items.
For the case of expiring watchlist items of course more information is needed and this could be provided in the form of another field containing the expire date (perhaps in a different table) or some way of tagging a field to for example expire in 1 month etc.

How stable is this? Stable enough to deploy the schema on WMF before merging, or are there people that doesn't agree this extra field?

I don't think we should rush on this and instead we can revisit this once the final bits of refactoring around watchlist things in core are complete (that were started in Feb 2016) and everyone's minds are refreshed & the idea of expiring watchlist items is actively being worked on again.

@Addshore Fine with me, but I want to make sure that this is really the semantics that is wanted/needed. The description of this ticket is a bit vague, and doesn't provide a concrete rationale. I'd hate us to add this, and then find out that we really needed something else.

I don't mean to block this - I just want to make sure that the relevant people are aware, and agree. Who will make use of this field? What do they say?

Addshore removed Addshore as the assignee of this task.Jan 12 2018, 12:09 PM

Change 271502 abandoned by Addshore:
Add timestamp field to watchlist db table

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/271502

Restricted Application added a project: Growth-Team. · View Herald TranscriptNov 1 2018, 3:10 PM
Catrope moved this task from Inbox to External on the Growth-Team board.Nov 1 2018, 9:34 PM
Gaelan added a subscriber: Gaelan.Feb 23 2019, 5:43 AM
Marostegui added a subscriber: Marostegui.

Untagging DBA (but remaining subscribed) until there is an actionable for us (ie: schema change to do - https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema_changes#Workflow_of_a_schema_change)
As the patch at T125991#2039065 got abandoned.

Restricted Application added a project: Community-Tech. · View Herald TranscriptFri, Oct 25, 7:58 PM