Here's a working implementation using the browser's prompt text box, based on the original idea by @Ricordisamoa. Copy it into your https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:___username___/common.js page. Note that the save will happen even if the user clicks Cancel because there is no good way to abort saving without crashing. This code can be directly used as a gadget.

In T208437#5016458, @Capankajsmilyo wrote:

@Yurik any progress on bot based one?

This feature has been requested several times when adding Wikibase to OpenStreetMap wiki. I think the very first step we can already do is to make it possible for gadgets to add edit summary string during the "save" command. This way we can experiment with the UI implementation.

@A2093064 I think a much more intuitive behavior would be to use the "root" page, e.g. MediaWiki:talkpageheader as a fallback when a language-specific page does not exist, and use /en to override just English -- thus treating /en the same as any other language. Yes, it is possible to run a bot to generate all such pages, but ... ew :)

@A2093064 The talkpageheader message is set to a "-" by default - see code. This seems like a very strange behavior, especially because it makes this message useless for non-WP installations.

In T217357#4993526, @A2093064 wrote:

@Yurik You need to create MediaWiki:Talkpageheader/xx. xx is any language code you want to show this message. For example: en-ca.

Note that Graphoid already supports POST approach (see v2 Graphoid api). You can post a graph spec to it, and it will return an image. But v2 was never actually used by any services, even though it is in production, just not exposed to end users. The issue with v2 is that we don't want to make MW parser (HTML rendering) dependent on an external service because of potential (unverified) speed concern - we need to generate some graph image URL without waiting for Graphoid to actually generate that image.

@Umherirrender that's an interesting idea, thx. It is not exactly the same because this wouldn't get me the redirect to redirect - e.g. A->B->C would only get me B->C without A->C.

@Pchelolo @Gehel I agree that Node 8 upgrade is urgent and must happen. This ticket was discussing Node 10, and mentioned that it was blocked on some dependencies, so I was proposing how to help with the difficulties of dependency upgrades, and k8s might be a good solution to that. I will be happy to chat on IRC. Thanks!!!

@Gehel is there a doc/procedure describing limits to docker deployment? E.g. would WMF have a docker repository and a well established build process that uploads to it, does it limit to the base images like "must use base Debian but not base Alpine", etc.

@MSantos and @Jhernandez , would it perhaps make things far simpler to migrate to use Kubernetes/Docker? Each maps service will be able to use any version of Node, or any native package, or even a different version/distribution of Linux as needed, and it will not affect any other services even if they are running on the same physical hardware. Even migration will be easier, because you will be able to use different version of Node on the same machine by different instances of Tilerator/Kartotherian.

Note that this is also possible with Sophox -- e.g. a SPARQL query can use Wikidata via federation together with all of OSM data itself (tags), plus attach the OSM geometry shapes to each wikidata ID it sees in the query result. Click "run query" under the example.

In T215073#4921970, @Jim_Carter wrote:

It is very irresponsible if the reliability of the map is questioned, yet it is been implicatied that "we will use the map because its free". In fact, the map that has been provided (OSM) is very different https://openstreetmap.in/#4/25.32/77.17 and accurate than the one rendered by Wikimedia, it is an act of intentional vandalism, then. If Wikimedia use what OSM provide then please restore it to that version instead of creating a new coined version.

FYI, there has been a number of discussions at OSM on how to document disputed territories. See the latest proposal.

@akosiaris at the moment, yes, graphs are shown if they are in page-props db - i.e. generated from the last page revision. If you try to view an older version of the page, you will only see the graph image if it hasn't changed since then, otherwise you will see a broken image (because the hash would be different, and that hash would not be stored in the page props). On the other hand, you can view the older variant if you use page preview -- graphs will be rendered on the client, without using page props.

The actual data table is present. Was there any related code changes in MW?

In T119043#4892528, @Anomie wrote:

Step 0: Resource more storage for the relevant servers. Probably a lot more storage.

In T119043#4892414, @daniel wrote:

I think we should have a "snapshot" capability - whenever page is edited, the previous page version in HTML should be preserved, and shown whenever one looks at the history.

That would be nice to have, but it should be done for everything, or nothing. Having some things show the current version of included data, and other things showing the old version of included data, is very confusing.

I think the first step is to save HTML (preserve template/module parsing results). Next step - when snapshoting, switch to image permalinks. Lastly, implement "computed blobs storage" as this ticket describes, and also use permalinks when snapshoting.
These things don't need to happen at the same time. Even making it possible to view proper text of the older version of an article is a good first step.

In T119043#4887415, @akosiaris wrote:

In T119043#4885517, @Yurik wrote:

Most of the time, Vega is used via a template, because otherwise you have a massive copy/paste of code without any benefit, while having no way to fix issues or improve appearance of all graphs en mass. Thus, per what @Anomie said - MCR is an orthogonal (in its current form) to the generated content. This actually has more similarities with the image thumb service than MCR (content is generated from "master" - wiki markup, and cached for usage by both the rendering service like Graphoid and directly from the client via the dynamic graph loading).

This does contradict however with requirement 6. BonusB: When user looks at an older revision of an article, they should see the graphs for that revision. given above. Just noting it, effectively reiterating what I think Tim has better phrased it in his comment at T119043#1868557

Most of the time, Vega is used via a template, because otherwise you have a massive copy/paste of code without any benefit, while having no way to fix issues or improve appearance of all graphs en mass. Thus, per what @Anomie said - MCR is an orthogonal (in its current form) to the generated content. This actually has more similarities with the image thumb service than MCR (content is generated from "master" - wiki markup, and cached for usage by both the rendering service like Graphoid and directly from the client via the dynamic graph loading).

done :)

Are there any updates/progress on this issue? The OpenStreetMap Wikibase has both the local images and it supports Commons, which means every OSM Wikibase "image" property is actually two properties - one of "image" type, and another being a manually copy/pasted string of the local (OSM) wiki file - in case the file is not on Commons. It would greatly simplify things for OSM community if an image property would be a single "media", regardless of where it is actually stored. What could be done to solve this?

I agree with @Legoktm -- storing data blobs in page props was a hack. But to my knowledge, there is no good alternative storage for the parser-generated blobs. Essentially any system that needs independent access to those blobs would require something like this, essentially solving T119043

See related approach by Module:TNT -- it stores templatedata as a table (example). In this case <templatedata> will be dynamically generated during the parse time, and is available to every language/every wiki.

@akosiaris also, please add usage before the Varnish - to see how often graphoid objects are actually requested by the user, rather than how often there is a cache miss. Plus a similar stats for getting map snapshots.

However, that begs a question. If the caller of the graphoid service API already knows the hash of the graph, that means they either got it via talking to mediawiki, or that they calculated it themselves (aka they already have the entire graph). If they already have the entire graph, why not POST it to the service and obtain the resulting PNG themselves? Things become even more convoluted if the user is mediawiki itself (that's to my knowledge actually the case) at which case having mediawiki instruct another service to create requests back to it (the API endpoint actually) causes a cascading number of requests hitting the mediawiki API. Up to now this hasn't caused an outage, in my opinion simply because of the low traffic the graphoid receives.

In T184933#4813382, @hoo wrote:

In T184933#4812900, @TheDJ wrote:

Fancy...
Just a followup/enhancement idea: since we have precision.. wouldn't this be a good place to draw a precision circle ?

This is a very good point: Basically we can alter the generated mapframes like in any article… in fact we generate them from wikitext (see CachingKartographerEmbeddingHandler::getWikiText).

I created a new task (T211676) for this… suggestions on how exactly to implement this are very welcome there :)

I suspect the same issue is in Graphoid - it pulls the same bin data blobs via api

After some extensive work with Docker containers, it seems they are much cleaner, more portable, and much easier to deploy approach, without any performance or other issues. I would highly recommend repackaging under Docker.

Upstream issue

@Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE I think both should be fixed - it should never use unneeded parenthesis for single values, and when the VALUES list is short enough, it should be shown singleline. For a very long list, it should be shown like this:

Turns out the --conceptUri http://wiki.openstreetmap.org should have been http instead of https. Thanks @Smalyshev for your help!

I added bot approach to the wish list -- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Miscellaneous/Shared_Multilingual_Templates_and_Modules_available_to_all_wikis
Please comment and help improve. Thanks!

IIRC, OSM can store polar regions just fine, but it is the OSM's own rendering that causes problems. Wikipedia does not use OSM's renderer, but it is similar in structure.

@Anomie I don't think that task will have anyone working on it any time soon - that's why I proposed a bot-based solution. The good thing about that solution is that:

• it doesn't need to wait for MW to change
• it is multilingual
• once MW implements something, all shared templates and modules can be switched to the new system without much effort (essentially just disable the bot)

@Capankajsmilyo AFAIK, WMF is not working on this. When I have some time, I will try to set up a bot to make this possible with the existing technology. A typical workflow:

• A template or a module is created on mediawiki.org (MW is better because its community is more dev-focused, whereas Commons tends to be content-focused)
  • all localization strings are placed in the tabular data on Commons to simplify translation
  • template parameters are also placed in a tabular data on Commons
  • All strings are used via the Module:TNT
• Some well known infobox is placed at the top of the template/module documentation to indicate that this module is shared between multiple wikis, and should not be changed anywhere else.
• A bot looks for all modules/templates on MW.org that have that infobox, and copies them automatically to all other wikis using the sitelink list in Wikidata
• If someone wants to use that template/module in a wiki X, they just need to copy/paste it to the wiki X, and add the sitelink - the bot will automatically keep it up to date from there on.
• If a wiki decides to "fork" their version, they can simply remove the infobox from the docs.

P.S. I am not sure Commons is the good place for the shared modules - simply because Commons community tends to be much less technical than the mediawiki.org community. Maybe the main source of templates and modules should be there instead, with the proper things like unit testing.

I agree this is needed, but perhaps we can already set this up without waiting for the complicated change in the system. There is one big reason modules and templates differ - language. So if we move translations out of the templates and modules, we can simply copy/paste them without any changes between wikis. Moreover, I think we can even automate that - e.g. any template or module that has some sort of a flag (e.g. embedded well known template) will be automatically copied from the central wiki to all other ones that want to use it. I wrote a Module:TNT that allows for the translations to be stored on Commons using shared data tables. This way, when you update a message on commons, all existing templates will automatically start using the new translation.

Seems to have been fixed in the past? Thx @MSantos !

@Krinkle the (1) was to give instant feedback to the user -- that's the part that I don't think is feasible in all cases -- because template could grow in size, and blob formation happens post-save. In some cases it might be possible when we are doing page preview to show a warning in case templates already exceed blob size. I do agree the extension should handle it gracefully, and remove some of the data to keep the JSON structure.

Adding a new table shouldn't be too hard, just requires someone to work on it :) @MaxSem actually had some prototype of this a few years back :)
Changing data would help because that data is essentially a key-value dictionary of objects. Each object is independent, and represents a separate graph. If there is a giant single graph on the page, this won't help. But if there are multiple large graphs, deleting some of them would make it possible for at least some of them to show up, rather than the whole page to fail.

Turns out this does break the 3rd party sites, e.g. wiki.openstreetmap.org. I think we should revert and introduce a separate path for the rest API.

More than 64KB is too large? That sounds ... strange when discussing modern systems that are perfectly capable of storing much bigger data rows. Especially when we clearly have a valid use case for it.

The only graceful thing we can do is something like this:

while (True) {
  gzData = gzip(rawData);
  if (length(gzData) < XXX) break;
  unset(rawData[length(rawData)-1]);  // delete last element
}

Could be optimized further.

Ahem... you did not offer any better alternatives :-) The proper solution is to simply change blob to large storage. That said, I don't think page props should be used for it. Instead, it should be a general "large blob storage" key-value store, where different extensions could store hash-based data. This way multiple page revisions could reuse the same blob, and at the same time updates to templates would create new blobs. This would also require usage counting (tricky). There is another big task about this.

(1) is not feasible -- if I build a page with the geojson or a complex graph, and some article adds multiple templates (e.g. an article with 10 graphs), the article blob may not fit all the data, causing this issue. In many cases, there is no way to even give feedback to the user, e.g. if the template gets updated after the article is created.

Agree.

Thx @Aklapper , I think WIWOSM wouldn't be part of it, because, just like Kartotherian and other techs, WIWOSM is using OSM tech/data, but does not affect the OSM project itself. On the other hand, some bug in MediaWiki could affect OSM community because OSM wiki uses MediaWiki engine. Essentially this tag would indicate the affected audience. BTW, the multilingual map efforts would probably fall under this tag because Wikipedia drives contributors back to OSM to contribute the name translations.

@Milimetric v3 and v4+ are not very different. Just some minor integration API changes. 4 is 99% backward compatible. So yes, we could just skip to 4.3

Another possible use case: multiple sitelinks to the same site. For example, Wikidata may have a project page for postal codes in English, and someone wants a similar page in German. But the community does not want direct translation, because English page may want to cover the whole world, while the corresponding German page may only want to concentrate on the aspects specific to Germany.

See my previous comment, I don't think this task should be done at all.

@Smalyshev correct. Ideally we should have T190454, but unless we want to stop using wikibase until it is ready, this is a good interim solution.