Page MenuHomePhabricator

QA Reply Tool at "Phase 1" wikis
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

This task involves the work with making sure the Reply Tool is working as we expect it to at the Phase 1 wikis.

Phase 1 wikis

This section lists the "Phase 1 wikis" mentioned above; these are the wikis where the Reply Tool should be tested.

WikipediaLanguage codeTest page
Chinesezhhttps://w.wiki/uH
Czechcshttps://w.wiki/ZKo
Serbiansrhttps://w.wiki/ZKp
Georgiankahttps://w.wiki/ZKq
Sorani Kurdishckbhttps://w.wiki/ZKr
Swedishsvhttps://w.wiki/rT
Catalancahttps://w.wiki/ZKs
Koreankohttps://w.wiki/ZKt

Testing instructions

  1. Visit Special:Preferences > Beta features (read: mw-prefsection-betafeatures) at each of the Wikipedias listed above and confirm DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
  2. Visit the 8 "Test pages" listed in the "Phase 1 wikis" sectiono above. At each of them, do the following:
    • A) Document the text input mode – source or visual – is shown when using the Reply Tool for the first time on a given wiki
    • B) Document if the Reply Tool does NOT "remember" [ii] the text input mode – source or visual – you used in your previous edit
  3. File a task if any of the conditions below are NOT met:
    • The Reply Tool can be used to reply to all comments. [i]
    • [ reply ] links are appearing where and/or how they should be

Potential issues

zh.wiki

  • #1: Source mode shown by default

ka.wiki

  • #1: Source mode shown by default (Peter not able to reproduce)

ckb.wiki

  • #1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.
  • #2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.

sv.wiki

  • #1: Source mode shown by default (Peter not able to reproduce)

ko.wiki

  • #1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

Done

  • The Reply Tool has been tested on 5 talk pages at each of the "Phase 1 wikis"
  • Tickets have been filed for the issues that surfaced during testing

i. There are some exceptions. E.g comments transcluded from other pages that are not explicitly specified cannot be replied to using the Reply Tool. Bartosz communicated this in detail here: T259653#6361242.
ii. "Remember" in this context means the following:

  • 1. You post a comment (call it "Comment 1") using the tool's source mode
  • 2. You post another comment (call it "Comment 2") using the tool's visual mode
  • 3. When you open the Reply Tool to post a third comment (call it "Comment 3"), you should "land" in the tool's visual mode (the same mode you used to make Comment 2)

iii. The "Test pages" are either the community's village pump page (where I'm assuming a variety of templates and conventions are used) or, in cases where wikis do not have a village pump-like wikitext discussion page, I've linked to wikitext talk pages with a decent amount of activity.

Event Timeline

Task description update
@Ryasmeen: I've added links to talk pages that should be used for testing to the "Phase 1 wikis" section of the task description (see the "Test page" column within the table).

First update on first four target wikis:

Chinese:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Source Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, no missing links on the test page given.

Czech:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, the following two instances where Reply link is missing on the test page given.

Serbian:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, the following one instance where Reply link is missing on the test page given.

Georgian:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature.
Step 2:
A. Source Mode.
B. Passed, remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, no missing links on the test page given.

Sorani Kurdish:

Step 1: Passed, I think. Can't translate the language using Google translate. Screenshot:

Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Failed, does not let posting any test comments.
Step 3: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given, could not check dirty diffs since no comments can be posted.
Screenshot:

Last update:

Swedish:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
Step 2:
A. Source Mode.
B. Passed. Remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, no missing links on the test page given.

Catalan:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed. Remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Placement of Reply links are okay, no dirty diffs, one instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though.

Korean:

Step 1: Passed, DiscussionTools is available as a Beta feature
Step 2:
A. Visual Mode.
B. Passed.Remembers the last used editor.
Step 3: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given. Placement of Reply links are okay for those that are present. Reply tool does not even load for that test page, shows the following error message:

Realized that the last issue on Korean wiki is probably related to T260294? Can check again once that one is fixed.

Thank you for posting these results, @Ryasmeen.

Below is the following:

  • What I understand to be the potential issues that surfaced in the testing you did
  • Comments/questions in response to said "potential issues."

Once we've come to a shared understanding of the issues, we can reflect the test results in the task description and if needed, file new tasks for the resulting issues.

Potential issues

zh.wiki

  • #1: Source mode shown by default
    • @Ryasmeen were you testing this logged in/out?

cs.wiki

  • #1 Reply link missing here: F32086309
    • @matmarex: do you think the [ reply ] links not appearing is expected because the {{Nepodepsáno4}} is NOT encapsulating the timezone in parentheses. See: {{nepodepsáno4|Rozek1app2|21. 5. 2020, 11:34|CEST}}
  • #2 Reply link missing here: F32086313
    • @Ryasmeen, this seems expected to me considering this comment's "signature" does not contain a link to the user's user page, talk page or contributions. See: #No_link_to_the_user_page.

sr.wiki

  • #1 Reply link missing here: F32086286
    • @Ryasmeen, this seems expected to me considering this comment's "signature" does not contain a link to the user's user page, talk page or contributions. It's also a newsletter that hasn't been posted by an individual which may contribute to this. See: #No_link_to_the_user_page.

ka.wiki

  • #1: Source mode shown by default
    • @Ryasmeen were you testing this logged in/out?

ckb.wiki

  • #1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.
    • @Ryasmeen can you share a link to the page where you were testing this?
  • #2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.
    • @Ryasmeen can you share a screenshot showing [ reply ] links NOT appearing? //[ reply ] links seem to be appearing as I would expect them to on https://w.wiki/ZKr; see:

sv.wiki

  • #1: Source mode shown by default
    • @Ryasmeen were you testing this logged in/out?

ca.wiki

  • #1: One instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though: F32087031 / https://w.wiki/ZR8
    • @matmarex does the behavior above seem expected to you? It does look expected to me considering the comment in question – https://w.wiki/ZR8 – seems to involve someone submitting a protected edit request, signing said edit request and subsequently signing the comment in which that edit request was contained.

ko.wiki

  • #1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given
    • @Ryasmeen can you share a screenshot showing [ reply ] links NOT appearing? //[ reply ] links seem to be appearing as I would expect them to on https://w.wiki/ZKt; see:

cs.wiki

  • #1 Reply link missing here: F32086309
    • @matmarex: do you think the [ reply ] links not appearing is expected because the {{Nepodepsáno4}} is NOT encapsulating the timezone in parentheses. See: {{nepodepsáno4|Rozek1app2|21. 5. 2020, 11:34|CEST}}

Yes, that's the reason, I think this is the expected behavior.

ca.wiki

  • #1: One instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though: F32087031 / https://w.wiki/ZR8
    • @matmarex does the behavior above seem expected to you? It does look expected to me considering the comment in question – https://w.wiki/ZR8 – seems to involve someone submitting a protected edit request, signing said edit request and subsequently signing the comment in which that edit request was contained.

Yeah, I think our tool is behaving as expected here. The original edit indeed adds two signatures, I have no idea if the user meant to do that.

It looks like they used a pre-filled new form to make that edit: on https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portada?action=edit, if you click the "Sol·licita una modificació" link ("Request edit"), you end up on the "Add topic" page with some prefilled content that includes a signature at the end. It's probably an easy mistake to make to add another signature, as one always does.

cs.wiki

  • #1 Reply link missing here: F32086309
    • @matmarex: do you think the [ reply ] links not appearing is expected because the {{Nepodepsáno4}} is NOT encapsulating the timezone in parentheses. See: {{nepodepsáno4|Rozek1app2|21. 5. 2020, 11:34|CEST}}

Yes, that's the reason, I think this is the expected behavior.

Understood, ok.

ca.wiki

  • #1: One instance with two signatures next to each other which looks odd but not sure if that's expected, the placement of the Reply link looks okay though: F32087031 / https://w.wiki/ZR8
    • @matmarex does the behavior above seem expected to you? It does look expected to me considering the comment in question – https://w.wiki/ZR8 – seems to involve someone submitting a protected edit request, signing said edit request and subsequently signing the comment in which that edit request was contained.

Yeah, I think our tool is behaving as expected here. The original edit indeed adds two signatures, I have no idea if the user meant to do that.

It looks like they used a pre-filled new form to make that edit: on https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portada?action=edit, if you click the "Sol·licita una modificació" link ("Request edit"), you end up on the "Add topic" page with some prefilled content that includes a signature at the end. It's probably an easy mistake to make to add another signature, as one always does.

I see. This makes sense.

Thank you for looking into these, Bartosz.

ppelberg updated the task description. (Show Details)
ppelberg updated the task description. (Show Details)

Outstanding issues

Below are, what I understand to be, the potential remaining outstanding issues. These issues have been added to the task description so we can keep track of them

zh.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

 'wmgVisualEditorIsSecondaryEditor' => [
	'default' => false,
	'enwiki' => true, // T132806
	'eswiki' => true, // T62188
	'frwiktionary' => true, // T169741
	'hewiki' => true, // T54552
  • @matmarex, considering the rules we established in T250523, do you think it's expected that people using the Reply Tool for the first time at zh.wiki see the source instead of the visual mode?

ka.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

I have not been able to reproduce the above.[i]


ckb.wiki

#1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.

  • @matmarex can you confirm the complex transclusions [ii] present on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) [iii] explains why comments cannot be posted to?

#2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.

  • @matmarex, can you confirm many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

sv.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

I have not been able to reproduce this. [i]


ko.wiki

#1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

  • @matmarex, can you confirm that, like issue #2 at ckb.wiki, many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKt) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

i. Note: I saw the visual mode when opening the Reply Tool for the first time at ka.wiki and sv.wiki
ii. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can%27t_I_reply_to_this_comment%3F#Accidental_complex_transclusion
iii. Evidence of complex transclusions at ckb.wiki test page; note the multiple "Content" transclusions

zh.wiki

#1: Source mode shown by default

 'wmgVisualEditorIsSecondaryEditor' => [
	'default' => false,
	'enwiki' => true, // T132806
	'eswiki' => true, // T62188
	'frwiktionary' => true, // T169741
	'hewiki' => true, // T54552
  • @matmarex, considering the rules we established in T250523, do you think it's expected that people using the Reply Tool for the first time at zh.wiki see the source instead of the visual mode?

I think this is the expected behavior. The article editor opens in wikitext mode at first, therefore the reply tool also opens in wikitext mode. In T250523 we've decided that is what we want.

(And the article editor opens in wikitext mode, because the visual editor is still a beta feature on zhwiki, because it's in this list: https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=dblists/visualeditor-nondefault.dblist)

ckb.wiki

#1: Failed, does not let posting any test comments.

  • @matmarex can you confirm the complex transclusions [ii] present on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) [iii] explains why comments cannot be posted to?

#2: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given.

  • @matmarex, can you confirm many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKr) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

#1: Yes, I also noted this problem in my earlier brief review in T251197#6366165. I fixed the problematic template now (https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=داڕێژە:سەرپەڕەی_دیوەخان&diff=prev&oldid=707759), so this should be working if you try again.

#2: Yes, the "Tech News" sections don't have complete signatures (only timestamps) and so they should not be treated as comments. The sections with real comments have reply links as expected, e.g. "بەکارهێنانی Databox بۆ درووستکردنی Infobox ـەکان"

ko.wiki

#1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

  • @matmarex, can you confirm that, like issue #2 at ckb.wiki, many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKt) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

Yes.

  • @matmarex, considering the rules we established in T250523, do you think it's expected that people using the Reply Tool for the first time at zh.wiki see the source instead of the visual mode?

I think this is the expected behavior. The article editor opens in wikitext mode at first, therefore the reply tool also opens in wikitext mode. In T250523 we've decided that is what we want.

(And the article editor opens in wikitext mode, because the visual editor is still a beta feature on zhwiki, because it's in this list: https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=dblists/visualeditor-nondefault.dblist)

Understood. As discussed during yesterday's team meeting, we need to develop an approach for what "default logic" should apply on projects where VE is a Beta Feature. This thinking and work will happen in: T261422.

#1: Yes, I also noted this problem in my earlier brief review in T251197#6366165. I fixed the problematic template now (https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=داڕێژە:سەرپەڕەی_دیوەخان&diff=prev&oldid=707759), so this should be working if you try again

Understood. I just tried again and noticed: the Reply Tool opens in this section (https://w.wiki/aWx), but not this one (https://w.wiki/aXH).

  • @matmarex: could the Reply Tool not opening in the latter section be explained by the comments in that section (https://w.wiki/aXH) being wrapped in tags like </span><span lang="en" dir="ltr"> or perhaps the entire section being placed inside this template: {{Ltr/end}}?

#2: Yes, the "Tech News" sections don't have complete signatures (only timestamps) and so they should not be treated as comments. The sections with real comments have reply links as expected, e.g. "بەکارهێنانی Databox بۆ درووستکردنی Infobox ـەکان"

ko.wiki

#1: Failed. Lots of missing Reply links on the test page given

  • @matmarex, can you confirm that, like issue #2 at ckb.wiki, many [ reply ] links are missing on the test page (https://w.wiki/ZKt) because many of the comments (tech news) were posted by bots?

Yes.

Understood. As discussed during yesterday's meeting, Reply Links could be made to appear on these tech news announcement if any of the following happened:

Note: we do not have plans to do the above

#1: Yes, I also noted this problem in my earlier brief review in T251197#6366165. I fixed the problematic template now (https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=داڕێژە:سەرپەڕەی_دیوەخان&diff=prev&oldid=707759), so this should be working if you try again

Understood. I just tried again and noticed: the Reply Tool opens in this section (https://w.wiki/aWx), but not this one (https://w.wiki/aXH).

  • @matmarex: could the Reply Tool not opening in the latter section be explained by the comments in that section (https://w.wiki/aXH) being wrapped in tags like </span><span lang="en" dir="ltr"> or perhaps the entire section being placed inside this template: {{Ltr/end}}?

Oh, I haven't noticed that before.

Yes, this is caused by the templates {{Ltr}} and {{Ltr/end}} that are wrapping that section. (The HTML markup like <span lang="en" dir="ltr">…</span> alone wouldn't cause the issue.)

We can't edit content affected by templates, this falls under the case I described here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can%27t_I_reply_to_this_comment%3F#Wrapper_templates

Yes, this is caused by the templates {{Ltr}} and {{Ltr/end}} that are wrapping that section. (The HTML markup like <span lang="en" dir="ltr">…</span> alone wouldn't cause the issue.)

Gotcha, ok.

We can't edit content affected by templates, this falls under the case I described here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can%27t_I_reply_to_this_comment%3F#Wrapper_templates

This page is proving to be quite valuable in helping me, and I assume others, develop a more nuanced understanding of the tool's limitations. Thank you for putting this together, Bartosz.