"Stashing failed because rate limit was exceeded" (parsoid-stash-rate-limit-error) shown in various interfaces when the user is blocked
Closed, ResolvedPublic
Actions

Assigned To

None

Authored By

	matmarex
	Oct 31 2023, 11:32 PM

Description

The error message "Stashing failed because rate limit was exceeded. Please try again later." (parsoid-stash-rate-limit-error) is shown in various interfaces when the user is blocked. This happens even when the rate limit has not been exceeded. I experienced this on English Wikipedia after my IP address has been falsely blocked as an open proxy.

This affects at least VisualEditor, visual diffs, and DiscussionTools new topic tool (but not DiscussionTools reply tool).

The error message is generated in MediaWiki core REST API here: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/mediawiki/core/+/5206c70aee55840d76b33e85179e61843a224b4c/includes/Rest/Handler/Helper/HtmlOutputRendererHelper.php#435 so I think the problem lies there, rather than in the editing tools.

Expected behavior:

In tools that perform edits (VisualEditor, DiscussionTools), I should see the block message, not an unrelated error.
In tools that do not perform edits (e.g. visual diffs), there should be no error and no block message.

VisualEditor
visual diffs
DiscussionTools new topic tool
DiscussionTools reply tool

Details

Subject	Repo	Branch	Lines +/-
block,Permissions: Blocks should not apply to implicit rights	mediawiki/core	REL1_41	+39 -3
block,Permissions: Blocks should not apply to implicit rights	mediawiki/core	master	+34 -3
Revert "Rest: replace use of deprecated pingLimiter method"	mediawiki/core	master	+5 -5

Customize query in gerrit

Related Objects

Mentioned In: T350517: Visual diff should not enable stashing when requesting HTML from Parsoid
T350347: Blocks should not apply to implicit rights
Mentioned Here: T350517: Visual diff should not enable stashing when requesting HTML from Parsoid
T350117: Action API with action=visualeditor returns rate limit error for articles in Mediawiki namespace

Event Timeline

matmarex created this task.Oct 31 2023, 11:32 PM

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptOct 31 2023, 11:32 PM

matmarex added a project: API Platform.Oct 31 2023, 11:32 PM

Same error and possible same cause, but different question: T350117

matmarex added a project: Content-Transform-Team.Nov 1 2023, 12:56 AM

Change 970754 had a related patch set uploaded (by Jforrester; author: Jforrester):

[mediawiki/core@master] Revert "Rest: replace use of deprecated pingLimiter method"

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/970754

gerritbot added a project: Patch-For-Review.Nov 1 2023, 5:59 PM

Change 970754 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@master] Revert "Rest: replace use of deprecated pingLimiter method"

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/970754

Maintenance_bot removed a project: Patch-For-Review.Nov 1 2023, 6:29 PM

ReleaseTaggerBot added a project: MW-1.42-notes (1.42.0-wmf.4; 2023-11-07).Nov 1 2023, 7:00 PM

In tools that perform edits (VisualEditor, DiscussionTools), I should see the block message, not an unrelated error.

The misleading error message is easily fixed. The deeper question is whether a check for the (implicite) "stashbasehtml" permission should return false for blocked users. I am now thinking that implicite rights should not be affected by blocks. I will work on a patch.

In tools that do not perform edits (e.g. visual diffs), there should be no error and no block message.

This indicates that visual diffs ask for the page content to be stashed for subsequent editing. That should not happen and should be treated as a bug. DirectParsoidClient::getPageHtml() in VE currently enables stashing unconditionally. If VisualDiff relies on that method, it would trigger stashing.

In T350202#9299466, @daniel wrote:

In tools that do not perform edits (e.g. visual diffs), there should be no error and no block message.

This indicates that visual diffs ask for the page content to be stashed for subsequent editing. That should not happen and should be treated as a bug. DirectParsoidClient::getPageHtml() in VE currently enables stashing unconditionally. If VisualDiff relies on that method, it would trigger stashing.

Maybe on diff view with diffonly=0 it is possible to directly edit the page as it is shown there. Maybe the error does not happen on diffonly=1 view as there is no content shown.
Not sure if the content after the diff is editable by the visual editor.

Change 970858 had a related patch set uploaded (by Daniel Kinzler; author: Daniel Kinzler):

[mediawiki/core@master] Blocks should not apply to implicite rights.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/970858

gerritbot added a project: Patch-For-Review.Nov 1 2023, 8:43 PM

daniel mentioned this in T350347: Blocks should not apply to implicit rights.Nov 2 2023, 8:44 AM

In T350202#9299627, @Umherirrender wrote:

Maybe on diff view with diffonly=0 it is possible to directly edit the page as it is shown there. Maybe the error does not happen on diffonly=1 view as there is no content shown.
Not sure if the content after the diff is editable by the visual editor.

Ok, but then the task description is wrong. It says:

In tools that do not perform edits (e.g. visual diffs), there should be no error and no block message.

MSantos moved this task from Backlog to Tracking on the Content-Transform-Team board.Nov 2 2023, 2:17 PM

In T350202#9299627, @Umherirrender wrote:

In T350202#9299466, @daniel wrote:

In tools that do not perform edits (e.g. visual diffs), there should be no error and no block message.

This indicates that visual diffs ask for the page content to be stashed for subsequent editing. That should not happen and should be treated as a bug. DirectParsoidClient::getPageHtml() in VE currently enables stashing unconditionally. If VisualDiff relies on that method, it would trigger stashing.

Maybe on diff view with diffonly=0 it is possible to directly edit the page as it is shown there. Maybe the error does not happen on diffonly=1 view as there is no content shown.
Not sure if the content after the diff is editable by the visual editor.

Yeah, no, it looks like visual diff indeed unnecessarily asks for stashing, by using the same API as visual editor. I filed T350517 for it.

Change 970858 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@master] block,Permissions: Blocks should not apply to implicit rights

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/970858

Change 972002 had a related patch set uploaded (by Daniel Kinzler; author: Daniel Kinzler):

[mediawiki/core@REL1_41] block,Permissions: Blocks should not apply to implicit rights

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/972002

Change 972002 merged by jenkins-bot: