Reupload/overwriting of old version of a file fails, multiple files are uploaded under same title, old revisions are lost
OpenPublic

Description

I have a report from a user that [[commons:File:Chiesetta_a_Fénis_1.JPG]] and [[commons:File:Castello_Jocteau_5.JPG]] were actually two images each (for unknown reasons), but uploading a reverted (non-current) version under a new title failed, presumably being considered a reupload/duplicate by unauthorised user.
When I tried with the UW I got an unknown error in the first step but normal upload worked: [[commons:File:Chiesetta a Fénis 2.JPG]], [[commons:File:Castello_Jocteau_7.JPG]].

Note that reverting the file to the first version resulted in the first file in file history being lost: related to bug 39615 comment 5? Another byproduct of bug 39221?


Version: master
Severity: major
URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bar_italiano&oldid=78411173#Ho_salvato_due_file_con_lo_stesso_nome

bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
bzimport set Reference to bz40304.
Nemo_bis created this task.Via LegacySep 17 2012, 5:46 PM
Nischayn22 added a comment.Via ConduitMar 8 2013, 5:41 PM

I tried the following locally but couldn't reproduce the bug.

Upload Penguins1.jpg, now upload Penguins2.jpg as a new version (under the same file name). Then tried to upload Penguins1.jpg again using UW.. it gave no error except 'title exists' (expected) .. after changing the title upload worked.

Am I doing something wrong?

Nischayn22 added a comment.Via ConduitMar 8 2013, 5:43 PM

Also didn't lose any file on reverting..

Nemo_bis added a comment.Via ConduitMar 8 2013, 6:57 PM

I don't know, maybe when the two files were saved by UW under the same title another mistake was that the saved hash for the file was the one of the older version? But then why would the normal upload work, does UW have additional checks?

If this works under normal conditions, I guess we can lower priority: the original error (uploading two files in one) was probably only WMF's Swift weirdness.

Nischayn22 added a comment.Via ConduitMar 10 2013, 5:06 PM

I don't think so, but I am not really sure. I think we should lower priority and come back to this only with pure reproducible ways.
Also marking as Unconfirmed as it worked for me.

Nemo_bis added a comment.Via ConduitSep 30 2013, 6:41 AM

I'm sorry for the confusing bug report but the issue is quite confusing in itself. I'm adding all the three different issues in the bug summary and raising severity; bug 54776 suggests this may be causing a few hundreds lost files per month.

Gilles added a project: Multimedia.Via WebNov 24 2014, 3:34 PM

Add Comment