At least for now we will not be able to merge the majority of valueview, because all the value experts are registered and required by RL module name via expert-module in datatypes.php.
Tue, Sep 17
Mon, Sep 16
Fri, Sep 13
Thu, Sep 12
part of T232465
Wed, Sep 11
This is still flaky, it seems. I uploaded a patch to skip it again.
@Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE yeah, let's close this one. I uploaded a patch to skip the test and I'll paste your comment over to the investigation task.
Tue, Sep 10
Mon, Sep 9
Tue, Sep 3
Mon, Sep 2
I monitored this for the past couple of days. While the daily browser test jobs are sadly not green, they at least no longer fail due to edit rate limits.
Fri, Aug 30
Browser tests are passing since https://integration.wikimedia.org/ci/job/selenium-daily-beta-Wikibase/374/. They failed on the job before that even though the config change should have been deployed then, so that may have been flakiness. Closing this for now since at least the failures during setup seem to be fixed.
Wed, Aug 28
Let's see if this worked!
Mon, Aug 26
This is now deployed! Bad language request: https://logstash.wikimedia.org/app/kibana#/doc/logstash-*/logstash-2019.08.26/wikibase-termbox?id=AWzOUDrqCfBFUvHRMov_
git bisect says it broke with this core patch: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/530623
Apologies for popping in unsolicited, but it looks like this task and its patches took a strange turn.
Sat, Aug 24
Thu, Aug 22
This is the RFC that I mentioned might be of interest when looking into this: T133462.
Wed, Aug 21
Tue, Aug 20
Storage capacity for the summary is not a problem, I think. Edit summaries go to the comment table and are stored as blobs. 64kb should be plenty even if we want to store the changes/additions/deletions of terms for 50 languages.
Aug 15 2019
Aug 14 2019
Probably solved with T230481
Aug 13 2019
I'm hoping the issue solved itself with https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Wikibase/+/529932
Aug 12 2019
I looked through it. The most interesting bits I've found that we're not using yet are:
- a ?doc endpoint for a GUI version of the swagger spec
- a generic error handling middleware
- logging wrappers for incoming and outgoing requests
My interpretation is that "this" refers to the component library, not bridge. I'm having trouble seeing the need for product ownership for it. Are we afraid that different hikes using/working on the library will have conflicting ideas as to what the library should contain, or how specific component interfaces should look like? I would hope that our usual code review processes are enough of a solution. I don't see a reason not to treat it like any other internal library for now and let it evolve naturally with as little process as possible. If it becomes a shiny all-purpose component library within a few months, we can always revisit the decision.