Page MenuHomePhabricator

rev_comment is empty with Proofread Extension's summary
Closed, DeclinedPublic

Description

Step of reproduction

1. In Quarry Wmflabs

use enwikisource_p;
select rev_comment, rev_user_text from revision where rev_page = 2391097

Link:- https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/31721

2. In Toolsforge

 jayprakash12345@tools-bastion-03:~$ sql enwikisource_p
 MariaDB [enwikisource_p]> select rev_comment, rev_user_text from revision where rev_page = 2391097 \G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
  rev_comment: 
rev_user_text: Beleg Tâl
*************************** 2. row ***************************
  rev_comment: 
rev_user_text: MattLongCT
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)

But in My local Machine, The revisions have /* XYZ */ summary

Jay-Prakash:~ administrator$ mysql alphawiki -u root
MariaDB [alphawiki]> select rev_comment, rev_user_text from revision where rev_page = 128 \G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
  rev_comment: /* Problematic */
rev_user_text: A
*************************** 2. row ***************************
  rev_comment: /* Proofread */
rev_user_text: A
*************************** 3. row ***************************
  rev_comment: /* Problematic */
rev_user_text: A
*************************** 4. row ***************************
  rev_comment: /* Proofread */
rev_user_text: A
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Expection

rev_comment should have summary.

Autual

rev_comment is empty

Extra:-
rev_page = https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Messiah_-_An_Oratorio_-_As_it_is_Perform%E2%80%99d_at_the_Theatre-Royal_in_Covent-Garden.djvu/11

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald Transcript

I think this is Regression I ran one more query on metawiki_p database, It shows that there is no summary after 20181022184658

Link:- https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/31753

Note:- rev_page (10681642) = https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Indic-TechCom/Requests

@GeoffreyT2000 Is that intended feature? (I saw your T210935 now)

If yes feel free to close this task.

Yes, we use the comment table now in lieu of rev_comment, ar_comment, log_comment, etc.