Okay, thanks. Linking to either of these diffs seems strange to me - though to be fair, the latter more so. But the fact that there are at least two different possibilities underscores the somewhat arbitrary nature of this link. People may want to see all sorts of diffs in helping to determine which revision to approve - and which changes to undo. I don't think any one diff will necessarily be the final one in making that determination - so giving priority to just one such diff seems strange.
Fri, Sep 21
The diff of what to the most recent?
(1b) Looks good now.
Thu, Sep 20
(1c) thanks. Not to belabor the point, but I still don't quite understand this - what would make users think, just by going to some random diff, that they took care of the page? Have they performed any action? Or is the diff not truly random?
Great to hear!
Sorry for the delay...
Tue, Sep 18
(3) - well, that's true, except for cases where there's no approved revision.
Mon, Sep 17
Okay, great - I'm relieved that we found a satisfactory solution for 1g.
Okay, cool - I guess if we agree on the HTML classes change, then we don't need to worry about the deeper meaning of it all. Could you please update (1g), given that?
Okay, I think we're getting somewhere - it seems to me like the main issue is that you think people will just be used to the way FlaggedRevs does it. Which is certainly possible. Again, keeping with the rating input comparison - which the more I think about it, the more I think it's a pretty close one, actually - it's as if people are used to an input where stars below the previously-selected number are colored red, and stars above it are colored green, and now they're confused if they see all the stars as the same color (probably yellow).
Sun, Sep 16
Great, the new descriptions look pretty good.
Fri, Sep 14
Okay, 1c looks good now.
Okay, this is looking a lot better now.
Thu, Sep 13
@Marquerose - sorry for the delay. I'm guessing that you have the same problem that the person you linked to in the talk page had - that the specified directory is not the full path. Is that possible?
Great, that's helpful! Though now I have some more questions. :)
Okay, I think that makes sense.
Oh, yes I did! I didn't mean to do that. :) Changing to Invalid...
Wed, Sep 12
Sure, you can change it to Resolved - or Invalid - or you can rename it, and make it a PageImages issue.
@Bryandamon - I'm pretty sure that problem has nothing to do with Cargo. You did, however, find an (I think) unrelated issue in Cargo - I just checked in a fix for it.
For 2b - did you mean this response to be for 2a? Otherwise, I don't understand it.
@Jayprakash12345 and @Volker_E - thanks for all your help with this. The changes to action=recreatedata, Special:DeleteCargoTable and Special:SwitchCargoTable have now been merged in. That may be it as far as Cargo's special pages, though - for Special:Drilldown and Special:ViewData, I think the autocompletion (or, in the case of Special:ViewData, planned autocompletion) is more complex than what HTMLForm/OOUI currently supports. I did, however, just check in some changes to Special:ViewData to make the inputs more closely resemble those of HTMLForm/OOUI (taller and wider).
Sun, Sep 9
(1d) - oh, okay. But maybe it would be good enough to just include that link for changes that are the latest change to a page?
@Jayprakash12345 - thanks for creating all these patches! I could never get myself to look into modifying the helper forms to use the new coding style, so I'm glad you've done the important work.
(1d) - oh, I didn't think about the case of changes in RecentChanges that are not the latest. Having those lines include a link to the diff from the approved revision to the latest one seems odd - is that really what FR does? Maybe the simplest solution is not to include a link at all for changes that aren't the latest?
Sat, Sep 8
@MarcoAurelio - thanks!
@Aklapper - I'm fine with being assigned this task. And External Data still supports MW versions as far as back as 1.23, for what it's worth.
Fri, Sep 7
@RheingoldRiver - thanks for your responses.
I just changed the sub-items of part 1 to be numbered, for easier reference.
@RheingoldRiver - overall these look quite reasonable. I do have questions/comments about some of them:
Thu, Sep 6
Wed, Sep 5
Are you aware of the VEForAll extension? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VEForAll
Tue, Sep 4
Thu, Aug 30
For that combobox field in the form - how are the values being set? Is it a parameter like "values from category" in the form, or does it come from an SMW property or Cargo field in the template? And are the values for the combobox being displayed correctly in the form?
Wed, Aug 29
Marking this as "Invalid" again... feel free to re-open.
Was already fixed at the time of reporting, I think.
Tue, Aug 28
Mon, Aug 27
Sun, Aug 26
@Aklapper - sorry for not responding before. At this point, just the mediawiki.org talk page is the place for bug reports, etc. I should request a Phabricator tag - actually, I should request that for a bunch of my extensions.
Sorry, no. It should just work automatically...