@Jdlrobson

1. Wednesday maximum Train day -1
2. Next train
3. Train day +1

@Jdlrobson as per our discussion in the Task sync:

Declined as part of Web Team Backlog clearup 2023/2024

Declined as part of Web Team Backlog clearup 2023/2024

Declined as part of Web Team Backlog clearup 2023/2024

Declined as part of Web Team Backlog clearup 2023/2024

T365448 is created to do the necessary work to have similar functionality and utilise the configuration on Minerva

ClientErrors
Looks like the error count is back up again and we had a couple of alerts over the weekend

Lastly for this

I think we should also remove the suggested

"changeValueAllowed": true

as we never set a different default value expecting it to be changeable, so an updated version should be like:

"DefaultUserOptions": {
  "FeatureName": {
    "defaultValue": "standard",
    "mainPage": {
      "defaultValue": "non-standard-1"
    },
    "namespaces": {
      "12": {
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-2",
        "exclude": [
          "PageName"
        ]
      },
      "14": {
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-1"
      }
    },
    "querystrings": {
      "action": {
        "defaultValue": {
          "view": "standard",
          "edit": "non-standard-2",
          "history": "non-standard-1"
        }
      },
      "diff": {
        "matchPattern": ".+",
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-3"
      }
    },
    "pagetitles": {
      "Special:Preferences": {
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-1"
      },
      "Special:Search": {
        "defaultValue": "standard"
      }
    },
    "description": "Configuration settings structured to define feature compatibility and default values for main pages, namespaces, query strings, and page titles. Ensuring broad default customisation with the flexibility to adapt."
  }
}

Looks like the deployment has resolved the issue, no more high occurrence of errors back to the low 2k count overall errors in an hour, I will update the ticket and resolve it.

I was looking into suggesting a newer configuration suggestion, especially adhering to feedback from @Jdlrobson :

"VectorFeatureOptions": {
  "value": {
    "system": {
      "changeValueAllowed": true, // Allows changes of the value. similar to disable/enable
      "defaultValue": "standard" // If not configured, the first value of the enumeration is the default.
    },
    "mainPage": {
      "changeValueAllowed": true,
      "defaultValue": "non-standard-1"
    },
    "namespaces": {
      "12": {
        "changeValueAllowed": false,
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-2",
        "exclude": ["PageName"]
      },
      "14": {
        "changeValueAllowed": true,
        "defaultValue": "wide"
      }
    },
    "querystrings": {
      "action": {
        "changeValueAllowed": true,
        "values": {
          "view": "standard",
          "edit": "non-standard-2",
          "history": "non-standard-1"
        }
      },
      "diff": {
        "changeValueAllowed": true,
        "matchPattern": ".+",
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-3"
      }
    },
    "pagetitles": {
      "Special:Preferences": {
        "changeValueAllowed": true,
        "defaultValue": "non-standard-1"
      },
      "Special:Search": {
        "changeValueAllowed": false,
        "defaultValue": "standard"
      }
    },
    "description": "Configuration settings structured to define feature compatibility and default values for main pages, namespaces, query strings, and page titles. Includes a system fallback to handle unconfigured features, ensuring broad default customisation with the flexibility to adapt."
  }
}

In T363834#9758450, @Jdlrobson wrote:

A suggested configuration is as follows:

I have a few concerns with the configuration.

1. Too expressive.

Configuration that changes appearance should not be added lightly as it increases the amount of variants we need to test on. The feature options seems to go beyond what we need here - for example I would be concerned about allowing this level of granularity per page.

The current system allows us to modify Special:RecentChanges to use large font size, Special:Preferences to use regular and Special:Watchlist to use small. I don't think we need that - it seems from requirements we need just standard (default) or small (exceptions)
An alternative might be something like wgFontSizeSmall which explicitly expresses pages which receive small font size instead of default, however I'd still question whether we need it to be as expressive as limited width - perhaps a list of pages as a first pass might be sufficient for example?

2. Conflict resolution It's not clear to me how we would deal with clashes with this proposed spec - with the current model I can set both 1.for.mainpage and 2.for.mainpage to true and it's not clear what I'd end up with.

3. Coupling with feature management system

Coupling with feature management (e.g. exclude) will likely complicate the feature management further. Since the feature management system only determines whether the feature is enabled or not, I wonder if this could be contained separately (e.g. when enabled what do the defaults look like?

Created Task Add Feature Default Values Configuration Options in Vector and Minerva Skins T363834
Once T363834 is done we have to do a configuration patch to apply the needed behaviours

In T363716#9753637, @Jdrewniak wrote:

Looks like the dependency already exists, but we need to add config to apply the CSS from the WikimediaMessages repository. Just created a pull request for that:

https://github.com/wikimedia/pixel/pull/273

In T361157#9740847, @Mabualruz wrote:

Is this only to update the message values?
Are we concerned about the confusion between key and value having different text in messages?
If we update the messages that move the confusion to the code as parts of the code will be calling in night mode and the message keys would be called dark, what is the ultimate take here?

I will add a patch just to update the message values for now. Let us discuss this more

Is this only to update the message values?
Are we concerned about the confusion between key and value having different text in messages?
If we update the messages that move the confusion to the code as parts of the code will be calling in night mode and the message keys would be called dark, what is the ultimate take here?

Based on the latest feedback and discussion here and on T360562, I think Medium is more fitting for now.

@stjn can we move the discussion to T361934, I wanted to summarise the movement of the discussion there for everyone's benefit. Thanks

I just had a discussion on slack with @cscott, about the new sub task and follow up work in summary:

In T360098#9684277, @Jdlrobson wrote:

Martin +2ed the patch (thank you!), so this just needs a patch for Vector to make use of the new functionality :)

1. There are two approaches to consider:

I have left some suggestions/questions on the patch

The following questions can help gather more context and understand the requirements for the task involving changes in the Appearance settings: