Page MenuHomePhabricator

AbuseFilter doesn't highlight the match cases at abuse log
Open, NormalPublic

Description

At Abuse log we can not recognize which text or word case abuse filter active.It should highlight the match cases at Abuse Log

This was also proposed on Portuguese Wikipedia:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esplanada/propostas/Proponho_melhorar_a_extens%C3%A3o_AbuseFilter

Details

Reference
bz70152

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Normal.
bzimport set Reference to bz70152.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
Yamaha5 created this task.Aug 29 2014, 5:32 AM

Created attachment 16311
Highlighing the match word

Attached:

Amire80 moved this task from Backlog to Logging on the AbuseFilter board.May 8 2016, 9:00 AM
He7d3r added a subscriber: He7d3r.May 19 2017, 6:26 PM
He7d3r updated the task description. (Show Details)May 19 2017, 6:28 PM

As I was saying in the duplicate, this task won't be easy at all. First, we need to determine what "the content that matched a filter" is. For a simple filter consisting of e.g. only an "rlike" condition, we may highlight the regex match. But in any other case it's not so clear. Also, where should we highlight it? And no, not on the variable content: what if there are multiple regex using it? We would end up with tons of cryptic highlighting. Even after understanding what to do and where to do it, this would require quite a big change to the parser.

Perhaps this could be broken out to a separate function/screen? I'm usually able to determine the string hits using testers like the one at https://regex101.com/

Indeed, I usually test regexps there to determine what triggered the filter. However, many filters don't even use regexps. I'm also reluctant in adding another page: we currently have under review T120740 which would add a new page, and T193064 which will add two. We're also discussing about T198005, and an option is to add another page. I don't think we want too many new pages added (at least, not without a major restyling), do we?