Change 984211 had a related patch set uploaded (by Arthur taylor; author: Arthur taylor):

[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] Change anonymous edit warning in wikidata-bridge for temp users

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/984211

Open question: when should the warning be removed? When the client has temp accounts enabled, when Wikdata has temp accounts enabled, or when both have them enabled?

Since the edit is made on Wikidata, that is what should be taken into account for deciding if IPs are going to be leaked.

Change 987716 had a related patch set uploaded (by Arthur taylor; author: Arthur taylor):

[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] Change anonymous edit warning based on tempuser configuration

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/987716

I’m confused by the two Gerrit changes attached here, are they both up for review or is one meant to replace the other?

Change 984211 abandoned by Arthur taylor:

[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] Change anonymous edit warning in wikidata-bridge for temp users

Reason:

Superceded by 987716

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/984211

@Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE sorry - my bad. One patch based the behaviour on the TempUser configuration of the client wiki, and one based it on the TempUser configuration of the target repo. The newer patch reflects the discussion in the ticket, and the older patch is now abandoned.

Clarification question for Product: Arthur’s change currently makes it so the temp-accounts version of the message is shown as a notice rather than a warning, is that right? (It sounds sensible to me, but I don’t think it’s specified in the task so far.)

Edit: Looks like this:
{F41691524}

It would be great to have a design for this ticket. I played around with a couple of things, but completely removing the warning makes the layout weird. Displaying the message as a warning, but with text that is actually formulated as an invitation / recommendation to log in also seemed wrong.

Also, currently it briefly shows the original warning message, then switches to the notice when the API tells us that temporary accounts are enabled:

(Something I didn’t notice before is that the title of the dialog also has the property ID replaced with the label around the same time – so at least it’s not new that the dialog changes itself as data comes in, I suppose. But it still feels awkward.) I agree that some design input on this task would be useful.

Ping @Lydia_Pintscher , @Sarai-WMDE - what should we do here? The data to decide what message to show isn't immediately available, and the messages fill up different amounts of space in the dialog. Are there other examples that we could follow for this?

My quick take:

• Using the message type "Notice" to display the information to temp-accounts makes sense.
• Flashing the warning message in this scenario is definitely confusing. In case this is unavoidable, then my initial suggestion would be to only display the relevant message in that space once the data is retrieved (the waiting time is really short after all). A nice animation would help:

Let me know if you think is this is sensible/feasible. Ready to fine-tune this or think of other alternatives if this doesn't sound fitting.
Please let me know if there are any other open questions that I failed to address. Thank you!

Hi all, although not an ideal solution as we currently have it, it will only be touching a relatively small number of people. So I think we can go with the current solution as Arthur has presented and address the delayed message and Sarai's design further down the line.

Additional context: Relatively small number of people means right now no-one as the Bridge is effectively disabled anywhere but test systems until the new team gets going with it.

Okay. Then submitting this code again for peer review. Thanks for the feedback.

@Arian_Bozorg - will you file the ticket for the follow-up UX work?

Change 987716 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase@master] Change anonymous edit warning based on tempuser configuration

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/987716

Should be testable on Beta, I think.