Page MenuHomePhabricator

Reverted edit tag applied to protection entries in page history
Closed, ResolvedPublicBUG REPORT


Steps to Reproduce:

  1. Edit a wiki page
  2. Apply protection to that page
  3. Revert the edit made in 1

Actual Results:
The "reverted" tag is applied to both edit 1 and the protection entry in the page history.
When a page is protected, the page history shows a log of the protection along with an empty diff. If protection occurs between an edit and a revert, the page protection gets marked as "Reverted" despite the page still being protected. This is misleading and undesirable behavior.

Expected Results:
The history entry noting page protection should not be marked as reverted, only the prior edit.

You can see an example of the undesired behavior at this revision and surrounding history. There was a brief discussion about it on EnWikipedia's technical village pump.

Event Timeline

DannyS712 subscribed.

Likely affects all null revisions, which include protection and page moves
@Ostrzyciel any reason not to exclude all null revisions in general? If so, the fix should be pretty simply to avoid adding such tags in the future:

in RevertedTagUpdate::markAsReverted

$revLookup = MediaWikiServices::getInstance()->getRevisionLookup();
$revisionRecord = $revLookup->getRevisionById( $revisionId );
$priorRev = $revLookup->getPreviousRevision( $revisionRecord );
if ( $priorRev && $revisionRecord->hasSameContent( $priorRev ) ) {
	// Edit has the same content as the parent revision, therefore a null edit with nothing to revert, early return
// Continue to call ChangeTags::addTags

though removing the tag from existing null revisions that are marked as reverted would probably require scanning all revisions with that tag, which would be expensive for a script (and more expensive the longer it takes to be fixed)

Hmmm, haven't thought of that.

Thanks @DannyS712 for the suggestion, I think this would do, I'll make a patch for this soon.

I don't know about the script, I have zero experience running scripts on Wikipedia and I don't know what are the performance limits there. I can do some poking around with DB indexes to see if we can optimize something here.

Change 633701 had a related patch set uploaded (by Ostrzyciel; owner: Ostrzyciel):
[mediawiki/core@master] Reverted tag: do not mark null revisions as reverted

Change 633701 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/core@master] Reverted tag: do not mark null revisions as reverted

Tagging user notice for change going forward
Should a maintenance script be added for removing the tag from old null revisions?

Should a maintenance script be added for removing the tag from old null revisions?

I probably won't have time to implement it, too many other matters right now, sorry, but I did some snooping on how it could be implemented. The problem is – enwiki's Special:Tags says there already over half a million reverted tags… which is a lot, wow. Of course the trouble would be to sift through these to obtain only null revisions marked with the reverted tag.

Finding revisions with the mw-reverted tag is simple, we just have to join with the change_tag and change_tag_def tables, these are all indexed of course. We can also filter the revisions by timestamp easily, but that still leaves us with half a million rows on enwiki alone. Unfortunately (for us) diff size is not saved in the revision table, so we can't simply filter null revisions. I can see two possible strategies for finding them:

  • Retrieve each revision marked with the reverted tag and then use RevisionStore's method for getting the previous revision, then compare their SHA1s. If they match, we've got a null revision. IIRC, this would mean a single DB query for each revision with the mw-reverted tag. I… don't see a simple way could batch these queries, apart from retrieving entire pages' histories, which would be probably worse.
  • Perform a join with the comment table and add a LIKE condition over the comment_text field. Protection and move revisions (I think) have some pre-defined comments that we could look for. This way the scan would be performed on the DB which would probably speed things up a little. Note: I haven't tested this and it may be a horrible idea.

For the user-notice entry in Tech News, is this accurate? If not, a rewritten or simpler/clearer draft would be appreciated :)

There was a problem with the [[Special:Tag|Change Tags]]. The software would apply the "{{int:Tag-mw-reverted}}" tag to any null edits such as page-protection changes that came after a reverted edit. This has now been fixed for new edits. [1]

For the user-notice entry in Tech News, is this accurate? If not, a rewritten or simpler/clearer draft would be appreciated :)

Looks good. :)

Just noting: @Tacsipacsi has helpfully rewritten the version in the draft to be more accurate (and especially thankfully, did so before I sent the 1st email to translators-l@!). That new version looks good to me, so I will leave it like that.
For future reference, it is always appreciated if people write out a draft entry for Tech News at the same time as they tag a task with User-notice. That saves us editors a major headache of trying to deduce what a task is all about. Thanks in advance! ;-)

@Quiddity Thanks for the ping, but that was actually T202989’s item (which I’ve been involved with), not this one’s.

Grah! It's been a long week. Thanks/sorry!