ApiQueryCheckUser should use a sensible default limit
Closed, ResolvedPublic
Actions

Assigned To

Authored By

	DannyS712
	Aug 27 2019, 5:42 AM

Description

Current, the code for running checkuser via the api includes the following specification for the limit parameter:

'limit'    => [
	ApiBase::PARAM_DFLT => 1000,
	ApiBase::PARAM_TYPE => 'limit',
	ApiBase::PARAM_MIN  => 1,
	ApiBase::PARAM_MAX  => 500,
	ApiBase::PARAM_MAX2 => 5000,
],

I suggest that the default be lowered to 500, which is the de-facto limit, since (as far as I know) there are not any bots that have CU permissions. Uploading patch now.

Details

	Subject	Repo	Branch	Lines +/-
	Lower default limit for running checkuser via API to 500	mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser	master	+1 -1

Customize query in gerrit

Event Timeline

DannyS712 created this task.Aug 27 2019, 5:42 AM

Restricted Application added a project: User-DannyS712. · View Herald TranscriptAug 27 2019, 5:42 AM

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

Change 532516 had a related patch set uploaded (by DannyS712; owner: DannyS712):
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@master] Lower default limit for running checkuser via API to 500

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/532516

gerritbot added a project: Patch-For-Review.Aug 27 2019, 5:42 AM

DannyS712 moved this task from Unsorted to Awaiting review and deployment on the User-DannyS712 board.Aug 27 2019, 5:43 AM

DannyS712 moved this task from General / Unsorted to Patches for review on the CheckUser board.Aug 27 2019, 7:38 AM

Tagging core platform team for review per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Maintainers

DannyS712 moved this task from Inbox to External Code Review Needed on the Platform Team Workboards (Clinic Duty Team) board.Sep 13 2019, 3:23 AM

Anomie moved this task from External Code Review Needed to External Code Review Completed on the Platform Team Workboards (Clinic Duty Team) board.Sep 19 2019, 6:17 PM

@Anomie this is marked as external code review completed, and on the patch you wrote I'll leave it to maintainers of the extension to make the final call on which specific numbers to use. - no feedback from the maintainers (or anyone) since September. Would you be willing to take another look and make the final call?