| Subject | Repo | Branch | Lines +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile VE should log saveFailure events | mediawiki/extensions/MobileFrontend | master | +208 -123 |
Details
Details
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | nshahquinn-wmf | T202132 EPIC: Generate one-off metric snapshots for mobile editing documentation | |||
| Resolved | nshahquinn-wmf | T202147 Snapshot: which parts of the edit process cause people to abort edits? | |||
| Resolved | nshahquinn-wmf | T202437 Identify and fix data quality problems in the Edit event log | |||
| Resolved | Jdlrobson | T202374 [EPIC] Cleanup Mobile editor error handling | |||
| Resolved | DLynch | T206050 Mobile visual editor does not log saveFailure events |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Change 478970 had a related patch set uploaded (by DLynch; owner: DLynch):
[mediawiki/extensions/MobileFrontend@master] Mobile VE should log saveFailure events
Comment Actions
Change 478970 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/MobileFrontend@master] Mobile VE should log saveFailure events
Comment Actions
Tested locally with trackdebug=1 with an edit that is blocked by an abuse filter.
The following is logged:
mf.schemaEditAttemptStep: Do not rely on default timing value for saveSuccess/saveFailure
mf.schemaEditAttemptStep.saveFailure -1ms
{
"action": "saveFailure",
"editor_interface": "visualeditor",
"editing_session_id": "ef6a13a8ebde1a1912b0",
"save_failure_timing": -1,
"save_failure_type": "responseUnknown",
"save_failure_message": "Error, edit not saved.",
"is_oversample": true
}Is the -1ms timing and the console warning expected/acceptable?
Comment Actions
Is the -1ms timing and the console warning expected/acceptable?
Yup! It's the same behavior that non-mobile VE has, at least, so it's consistent. I think (it predates me) that the logic was that the timings for saveSuccess/saveFailure don't have any particularly useful other-step to ground them on.