Page MenuHomePhabricator

User notification when an automated source edit or deletion fails
Closed, DeclinedPublic

Description

In T225617 and T226532, we try to make remote API calls to modify or delete the source file in the user's name. If these edits fail, we'll fall back to the "manually add the template" instructions. The question to be answered in this task is, do we want to show messaging when these requested edits fail and how should that look to the user?

One proposal which is easy to implement, is to show a green success box saying that the edit completed, and below it show a yellow warning box with the failure message. I believe this is a nice order of display because the most important information is that the import was successful. The warning is secondary. In this scenario, we should be careful that the warning message doesn't make reference to the "instructions above", the reading flow should be linear. For example:

with warnings.png (340×847 px, 144 KB)

Another proposal is to modify the success message to express the nuanced result conditions.

A third alternative is to show the success and error paragraphs, but all within a green box.

Event Timeline

To be clear, implementation effort of any of these choices is going to be negligible. The code for displaying the boxes is very generalized, it just takes messages and warnings as its inputs and we're free to produce those in any combination we find is best.

@Jan_Dittrich Do you have an opinion?
I was expecting one box for all the info, in yellow, because it is a revertible error message, thinking this was mediawiki standard behavior. Do you know what the standard behavior is?

I was expecting one box for all the info, in yellow, because it is a revertible error message, thinking this was mediawiki standard behavior. Do you know what the standard behavior is?

I do not know what the standard is (If there is one at all, at least I do not know of a written standard on this)

I think the two boxes are actually not bad, since I easily can see that one thing in the process went well, and another sort-of had a problem. If we put all in one box one of these aspects can get easily lost.

oj interesting! FYI @JStrodt_WMDE

Very interesting. Thanks for the ping, @Lea_WMDE @awight.

(This should be eventually merged with T226509, but I'll wait until we finish the discussion.)