Have a standardized method for extensions to expose public configuration settings through the API
Open, NormalPublic

Description

Extensions often want to expose their configuration settings via the API:

We should have a standardized endpoint like meta=configuration&cfname=extensiondistributor to expose specific whitelisted settings.

Legoktm updated the task description. (Show Details)
Legoktm raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
Legoktm added a subscriber: Legoktm.
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptFeb 20 2015, 6:56 AM
Aklapper triaged this task as Normal priority.Feb 20 2015, 10:31 AM
Anomie added a subscriber: Anomie.Feb 20 2015, 2:46 PM

Is CirrusSearch even an example of this, or is the dump there more of a debugging mechanism? I had thought Nik had described it as the latter at one point.

As for ExtensionDistributor, I'd have been inclined to include that little bit of info in the API module it adds since the list of branches available seems directly related to the lists of extensions and skins. Also, BTW, that module seems strange as a generator module that doesn't actually generate anything.

What would be the difference between meta=configuration and adding a new siprop to meta=siteinfo, besides that siteinfo is already a bit bloated?

Is CirrusSearch even an example of this, or is the dump there more of a debugging mechanism? I had thought Nik had described it as the latter at one point.

Not sure, but my point was that it had to invent its own way of doing it.

As for ExtensionDistributor, I'd have been inclined to include that little bit of info in the API module it adds since the list of branches available seems directly related to the lists of extensions and skins. Also, BTW, that module seems strange as a generator module that doesn't actually generate anything.

Sure, but that kind of defeats the point of standardizing :P In the future I expect we'll also have a special page to display configuration so people don't have to depend on things like noc.wikimedia.org. But creating an API is a good first step IMO.

What would be the difference between meta=configuration and adding a new siprop to meta=siteinfo, besides that siteinfo is already a bit bloated?

None, it could be added to siteinfo but I thought we didn't want to keep adding more stuff to it.

Sure, but that kind of defeats the point of standardizing :P In the future I expect we'll also have a special page to display configuration so people don't have to depend on things like noc.wikimedia.org. But creating an API is a good first step IMO.

OTOH, that's somewhat what meta=siteinfo already does. Various configuration settings are output based on the fact that someone needed them at some point.

I suppose "meta=configuration" would be more directly asking for the raw value of configuration setting X, assuming X is on the whitelist.

What would be the difference between meta=configuration and adding a new siprop to meta=siteinfo, besides that siteinfo is already a bit bloated?

None, it could be added to siteinfo but I thought we didn't want to keep adding more stuff to it.

True.