| • aishwaryavardhana | |
| Mar 9 2022, 5:50 PM |
| F35965177: image.png | |
| Jan 3 2023, 3:48 PM |
| F35965178: image.png | |
| Jan 3 2023, 3:48 PM |
| Unknown Object (File) | |
| Jan 3 2023, 3:32 PM |
| Unknown Object (File) | |
| Jan 3 2023, 3:32 PM |
| F35962309: CleanShot 2023-01-03 at 16.15.08@2x.png | |
| Jan 3 2023, 3:32 PM |
| F35962287: image.png | |
| Jan 3 2023, 3:32 PM |
Problem: Currently no edit summary UX when approving or disabling an implementation or tester on view function page user flow when the user is on the 'Details' tab
Where in the user flow of editing a function page should we incorporate the users ability to add an edit summary? (Could be done on the confirmation modal)
@krillrivera I think you have the wrong parent task? I don't think this is anything to do with Swift rings?
@gengh could we use the publish flow (with the publish component) for these type of actions too?
@AAlhazwani-WMF I'm not sure if including the publish component in this action is what we want, disabling-enabling an implementation/tester is currently a really dynamic action (if the user has the rights to do so), and adding publish component might mean adding more steps to the process and maybe making it more hectic.
I notice that in the title of this task there's a question mark on "user-editable", so I'm not sure if this is something decided or not. We should first decide:
My feeling is that adding an automatic summary that is descriptive enough is fairly easy for launch, and modifying it to allow users to edit it can be an additional feature post-launch and only if editors require it.
In case we decide to make it editable now for launch, including the publish component in the flow should be the solution.
My feeling is that adding an automatic summary that is descriptive enough is fairly easy for launch, and modifying it to allow users to edit it can be an additional feature post-launch and only if editors require it.
Yup, that make sense, thanks for the extra context @gengh!
Looking at the current copy on the page (implementations, test cases, approve, deactivate, ...)
and at what Wikipedia currently does
we could opt for something similar(?) to →{anchor to the table} + {approve|deactivate} + {implementation/test case name}
Some examples using the screenshot above:
where '→Implementations' or '→Test cases' links to the table on the function page, and where multiple implementations or test cases are comma separated.
If useful, we could also link to the implementations/test cases in the edit message?
With this proposal we wouldn't need any new copy as we would use the already existing wording. What do you think?
Change 945770 had a related patch set uploaded (by Jforrester; author: Jforrester):
[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] WIP: Add edit summary when approving/deactivating imps and testers
@Jdforrester-WMF I was looking at the WIP and it looked good! do you need any help for unblocking this?
Yes, if you can work out where the browser tests are failing that'd be smashing. Otherwise I will try to pick this back up soonish.
Please see https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Project_chat#Question_regarding_identifying_failing_or_unconnected_tests. If that discussion goes no further, my feeling is that a reason for disconnection should always be given (whether it is a Test or an Implementation that is being disconnected).
Change #945770 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] Add edit summary when approving/deactivating imps and testers
Change #1051159 had a related patch set uploaded (by Genoveva Galarza; author: Genoveva Galarza):
[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] Fix automatic message for connect/disconnect function objects
Change #1051159 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] Fix automatic message for connect/disconnect function objects