Wed, Jul 7
Jun 30 2021
Yes to all of the above -- we definitely want to make sure we're iterating on a data model, and it's definitely important to decide on the standard. We do have a couple of artifacts touching on this and we'd love to share those.
We should make sure we choose a library that properly supports RTL. It seems Tailwind has support, but potentially a bit over complicated, see: https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/discussions/1492#discussioncomment-6061
Jun 14 2021
To be honest, my main pet peeve is that mediawiki is taking a choice that the user usually thinks is private (preferences), that is then used to show things differently only for them in their context - and then turning around and using it publicly.
Gender, sex, and language pronouns are three distinct notions. The article discusses some application of this, but the first sentence can't be clearer:
A gender symbol is a pictogram or glyph used to represent biological sex and gender in biology or medicine"
Jun 13 2021
Jun 11 2021
Jun 10 2021
Jun 9 2021
This is a fascinating discussion and I actually am not entirely sure I have a good answer to this. As a woman who speaks gendered language, this touches all my pet peeves at once, which would have been helpful to formulate an opinion, except some of those pet peeves are from one side and the others on the other.
May 26 2021
May 14 2021
From my personal perspective, and my experience with OOUI that was meant to be a shared library used by teams to create components, I am extremely intrigued by the potential benefits that TypeScript can offer with the IDE hints and developer-help that you've mentioned above. I think it might be worth exploring whether it's worth using TypeScript if not in the entire wvui library, then even only on the "lower/common" underlying code that others will rely on -- llike mixins and base components.
Jan 7 2021
I am not sure if you've done anything in the past couple of days, but I haven't encountered this issue anymore.
Jan 3 2021
Dec 7 2020
Re your notes, in reverse order:
Oct 28 2020
Oct 25 2020
Chrome and FF seem to be somewhat smart about the date and are rendering it properly in RTL
Oct 11 2020
Oct 9 2020
Oct 1 2020
Sep 30 2020
Honestly beyond the awkward connotation (!) in that name, I'd offer that the name of the product should be more descriptive of what the product actually does. This product is available especially to people who are not familiar with wiki-speak, who come in and want to export pieces of text, books, etc, to standalone formats. Changing the name to reflect the use and purpose of the tool can be beneficial on top of the fact that we should really avoid sticking to very awkward connotation from the abbreviation.
The idea here is that since the global watchlist contacts the individual Wikipedias' APIs, we want to limit how many concurrent requests are sent, because sending a request to 900+ apis is unreasonable.
Sep 28 2020
Note: I sent the draft document link directly to @srodlund
Sep 10 2020
I'm jumping in (by request! ;) to give my recommendation: I would 100% go with VueJS on this, even only for the reason that recently this was the framework adopted by the foundation for our frontend modernization.
Jul 21 2020
Also, this shouldn't act as a gadget; we did not officially release it as such and it is not optimized to be that. We're supporting it as a browser extension, and we're (ab)using the ResourceLoader queue "feature" to insert ourselves as if we're a gadget,but still working from the browser.
IIRC, we need to ask for the translated message for the button/link, and while we're at it we're asking for the rest of the messages. I don't think we can get away with not calling it at all and still have the link appear? (though admittedly I need to delve into the code again to see if it's a timing issue)
Jul 8 2020
Jul 7 2020
Jun 30 2020
@Marostegui (feel free to tag anyone else that may need to participate here?), we've discussed this extensively in the team after running into some challenges, and ran some analysis on the usage of the watchlist table. We want to see if we can reframe the problem and make sure we can find a viable way forward.
Jun 29 2020
Another idea, followup from conversations in the team:
May 29 2020
There's an issue here we should account for, or at least be aware of, that may make this block action less impactful than we'd think. If we go with @DannyS712 idea, we could probably block the actual action of moving a page (when you hit the menu action item for "move") but there are other ways to move pages manually.
May 22 2020
May 21 2020
It looks like the output should be added to the table entry for the page rather than just the rows outputted for a single change, in "EnhancedRecentChanges". Good catch, @Scardenasmolinar
May 20 2020
May 19 2020
May 15 2020
We definitely rely on user rights when we show (and not show) the information when a revision is suppressed or deleted, by feature (not bug) so it sounds reasonable that if the revision was deleted, you'd get a popup with hidden details.
Can you check if this happened at a specific revision? I just tried it now, and I see the entire text highlighted, given credit to your username as have written 100% of the page.
May 14 2020
May 8 2020
May 7 2020
May 5 2020
May 1 2020
Sure, but there are exceptions to this rule, and when those exist, we do need a way to do it.
I think that the question of which "upstream" is a good one; ideally, this actually could be generic enough to be in OOUI tiself, but I agree that it probably just increases complexity and size for probably very low usage.
That's weird; we do have inline forms with text fields, I'd have expected this to be found as a bug before.... :\
If FieldLayout allows for an inline config, then it should respect inline settings.
Apr 21 2020
After a bit of back and forth with @Catrope and examining the challenges here with an OOUI popup, Roan made a good point about at least testing whether the alternative is viable.
Apr 17 2020
Thank you everyone for all the feedback and back and forth, and I apologize for any misunderstandings here.
Apr 9 2020
Apr 7 2020
@Nuria I'm a little confused, and I'd like to clarify something.
Mar 31 2020
Split to two tickets:
(egh, my screenshot didn't work, but--) w00t, it works now!
Sweet, I think this should fix it. I +2'ed, so it should be available on beta soon to test.
Mar 27 2020
Following up since @Etonkovidova has asked me to look into why it's not working:
Mar 24 2020
Mar 22 2020
I would avoid doing things that have no (or huge) limit. Honestly, I think it's a product problem more than a performance one, but since we are checking more than one target (unlike the original) I'd be slightly more careful, and go with pagination.
Mar 13 2020
Mar 12 2020
This looks great. Let's just make sure we don't literally copy over what RecentChanges is doing, because the way it is constructing its lines is pretty horrific, and uses monospace-font single-spaces to align tags per each line, etc.
Mar 7 2020
Oh, I'm sorry if I misrepresented. I got confused with the table showing different messaging exists=true and exists=false... which is different than the suggestion. Sorry, it's really confusing -- I'm just glad we are on the same page!
My main concern was about changing the behaviour of a long-standing and widely-used widget - if that's ok then let's go ahead with this.
Mar 6 2020
Thank you for the thorough analysis, @Tchanders !
Feb 26 2020
Clarification: The cap should be configurable per wiki (per the conversations with DBAs), with a default (for now) of 20,000 items.
Thank you for the excellent detailed reply, @EvanYou. This is a great summary of the points, and gives a good perspective to this RFC and the entire modernization endeavor in general.
Looks good to me. Thank you for figuring it out, @matmarex !
Thanks @Dzahn ; I signed the document, and my public ED25519 key is:
Feb 25 2020
The general idea of this specific task is to provide the full coverage for the Services, not so much for the special page, which seemed to be more focused and doable. We've added the use cases to guide/inform the approach to the testing.
Feb 21 2020
A couple of small clarifications from the meeting. The third option is the one that's laid out in the description of this ticket, including the product implications.
Confirmed; on Firefox v73, even on not too large of a screen.
Feb 20 2020
We don't have that in production so far, so I'm not sure, especially due to security concerns. We might need to have a gadget where each user must whitelist the toolforge URL individually for security and privacy.
PRU is now available on all test wikis:
Feb 19 2020
Investigation resolved. Next steps on followup tickets. Thank you for everyone's input!
Investigation is done; we will await next steps to create followup tickets.
Feb 18 2020
Feb 17 2020
Will do, @Marostegui ; FYI, I'm also tracking the creation of the table through this ticket: T244631: Create `watchlist_expiry` table in production after wmf.19 is available.
Feb 15 2020
Feb 14 2020
Just to clarify for engineering related thing, am I right to say that, basically, the message ("Both username and email address are required to receive a temporary password via email.") should never appear anywhere, @ifried ?
The product we're discussing (an expansion to CheckUser) deals with potentially large chunks of data from the database, which triggers a number of problems with regard to performance. Regardless of what method we use, we have to come up with a good way to deal with that. After discussing with the team and talking things with @Catrope for some advice around how CheckUser has historically extracted potentially large chunks of information to process, I think we have a slightly changed strategy, and have a plan.