Unstripping using mStripState is done after wikitext is parsed to HTML, but after parser functions and templates are evaluated (first, signatures and substs are parsed to the actual wikitext to evaluate, then the preprocessor inserts the wikitext produced by the templates, than this wikitext is translated to HTML).
Wed, Apr 17
As the documentation in insertFinalizedVars suggested, wikitext is not parsed properly if we use the default strip process. I don't think we can fix this, as even parsing the wikitext ourselves, which might be possible, will probably yield further ugly issues. However, the solution I implemented here works just fine for subst, as this is done before wikitext is parsed.
T123078 contains some information about how this works.
Well, this does not really surprise me, as substitution does not really like this extension. (T201857) I guess this won't be easy to fix, but I believe the reason why this is happening is quite simple: While ExtVariables->reqestFinanlizedVar is called without any problems and the strip markes inserted, the InternalParseBeforeSanitize function is not called in the subst parser run, so ExtVariables->reqestFinanlizedVar is never called.
Mon, Apr 15
After a little searching a little with code search, I believe the only place this is used is https://github.com/SemanticMediaWiki/SemanticGlossary/blob/master/SemanticGlossary.php#L25 .
Sat, Apr 13
Fri, Apr 12
Is the ParserDiffTest class still needed? This patch removes its last actual appearance according to MediaWiki Codesearch.
@Legoktm I think we should get this merged in time for MW 1.33. Their shouldn't be any remaining issues in the code.
Tue, Apr 9
Fri, Apr 5
I think we should just archive String Functions and leave it as is.
Wed, Mar 20
See also T209086.
Mar 20 2019
As I understand the task title, Jayprakash considers extensions where noone in the corresponding Gerrit group (so, excluding people with +2 in mediawiki/*) has +2ed a patch in a year or two. I agree that this could be quite interesting.
Mar 17 2019
This line of thought sounds quite reasonable. I doubt creating an additional tag for these few tasks is warranted, if no additional users request one.
It is a pity that extensions like this one tend to end up unmaintained. @Florian has outlined something similar in core in T155155, which has the goal to introduce a special page listing the current wiki configuration, that could maybe be extended to allow configuration changes as well in the future.
I do not really get how this is related to the impact of the vandal. as he basically states a single claim that would have to be denied or confirmed anyway at some point. I do not think we can link information about the incident and impact of the vandal here.
I don't think removing these comments is a good idea, as people subscribed to this task recieve the respective email notifications anyway and are left with even more questions than before. If the intention is to deny the claims of @JruwJN, I would consider it the better approach to just say so, if the intention is to keep this hidden for now, it simply is not working. So I don't think these deletions do any good.
Mar 16 2019
People use these to do statictics, that is basically the only reason for public logging. And as you can filter the thanks by actor and recipient, it is not quite that useless in practice.
Mar 12 2019
@MaxSem This shouldn't matter, as the code is fine. I would be willing to adopt this change.
Mar 9 2019
Mar 3 2019
Making deleted content of whatever kind available to a larger group than sysops has been declined by WMF over and over for legal reasons. Even my proposal to allow access to the history of edits you made yourself has been declined in Community Wishlist. That's why I'll be bold and just close this one, especially since it not only targets a specific wiki, but MediaWiki defaults.
Mar 2 2019
There is a problem with Milestones: Phabricator orders Milestones by creation date in Workboard and Navigation, a behavior that can not be changed. As PAWS (JupyterHub 0.9) has been created before this Milestone, these Milestones would be displayed out of order.
Mar 1 2019
@Legoktm I would love to get this into MW 1.32.2 or something like that, so this feature is finally complete.
Oh, now I see the difference.
Feb 26 2019
I plan to take care of this in a few weeks when my schedule clears up. However, if someone else wants to do this, feel free to claim this task!
A special case that should maybe be adressed: Are there special policies for extensions that are not deployed by Wikimedia, but bundled with MediaWiki? T191741: Bundle Replace Text extension with MW 1.31 provides an example for this, where self-merges are forbidden as part of the process. (T191741#4179808)
Feb 22 2019
Wouldn't be #Tool-status the better choice? Status seems like a quite generic tag name to spend here.
Feb 17 2019
Feb 12 2019
@Legoktm Do you know when you will have time to take another look at this change? I implemented your feedback.
Requested public project User-crusnov has been created: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/3884/
Feb 10 2019
Marking this as Resolved for the time being.
@Krinkle I don't think it is supposed that change project scopes are changed without consultig with Project-Admins first, especially as the scope of this project has been the result of a discussion here.
Feb 9 2019
Feb 5 2019
Requested public project User-EBernhardson has been created: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/3865/
Feb 3 2019
While I'm not involved in deciding this, I would appreciate you doing actual code contributions first. The commits you linked here are still more on the trivial side of things.
Feb 2 2019
Jan 24 2019
Requested public project User-DannyS712 has been created: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/3849/
Jan 23 2019
Jan 22 2019
Jan 17 2019
Jan 16 2019
I agree that it doesn't really matter if tasks are filed as long as there is not separate project for them, as noone will ever find them anyway. However, if noone is active at maintaining a project, I don't know if this will really solve the issue.
Jan 15 2019
I agree with @Mainframe98 here.
Jan 8 2019
@Legoktm Do you know when you will have time to review this change?
Thank you very much!
While I read the code in a way that you shouldn't be able to set this permission with the userights permission (because of the way User->getAllGroups works), is this displayed on ListGroupRights correctly? It might be ignored there as well an could look weird with no permissions assigned.