@awight Can this be marked as resolved or do you still want to have another look?

In T237529#5653134, @awight wrote:

Something's wrong here, for example I see percentages well over 100% for the anon group. Can you spell out what the math is supposed to be doing?

Seemed to be some weird glitch with Grafana/Graphite, I don't believe the problem still occurs with the new graphs.

Other minor suggestions:

• Would be nice to have a legend, maybe with the average for each group over the timespan.

Done

• It might be impossible, but can be groups be given names which naturally collate in an order that makes sense? We should have thought of this at coding time, it might be annoying now.

I don't know of any easy way way that wouldn't affect performance and/or readability

• "User Contribution Score" is usually "by Editor Experience"

Done

• Null value handling (Display tab) should probably be "zero" or "connected", depending on the metric. Otherwise we have discontinuities.

Done

• aliasByNode can usually be aliasByMetric, then you don't have to specify the node position.

Using aliasByMetric after asPercent appears to result in an empty alias so I opted for aliasByNode

Taking into account the metrics added in T236886 (editor experience = anon, under11, over10, over100, or over200) we can answer the following questions:

1. What % of edit conflicts experienced using TwoColConflict are resolved, grouping by editor experience?
2. What % of edit conflicts experienced using the default interface are resolved, grouping by editor experience?
3. What % of edit conflicts experienced using TwoColConflict are left unresolved, grouping by editor experience?
4. What % of edit conflicts experienced using the default interface are left unresolved, grouping by editor experience?

Added the following graphs:

Grafana graphs:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/000000553/mediawiki-fileimporter?orgId=1&panelId=52&fullscreen
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/000000553/mediawiki-fileimporter?orgId=1&panelId=54&fullscreen

@Dzahn Sure, the SSH public key is this one P9126 (created exclusively for production):

Verified by import from test2 to testwiki:

Verified by import from test2 to testwiki, see edit summaries on test2:
https://test2.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A038pro01.jpg&type=revision&diff=409658&oldid=408831

I noticed that if we would like to use Interwiki links in the summaries instead of plain URLs, and continue to support third-party wikis, we would need to make use of the Interwiki API endpoint on the source wiki. This would allow us to determine which prefix should be used to represent the destination wiki and then use that prefix when building the edit summary. An example where this API endpoint was used is https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/FileImporter/+/520197/.

I might be missing something here but couldn't we simply do the following:

Looks fine from my side, @thiemowmde?