In T416866#11597068, @Daimona wrote:

The total number of distinct organizers per month in the last year

I only see "Active Organizers Per Month", was that meant to be unfiltered (w.r.t. to activity?)

3 new charts added to this superset dashboard:
https://superset.wikimedia.org/superset/dashboard/615/?native_filters_key=iypqHB0qc3wbsB7Qyhuc7NzJ1H-LisSyJlhKDNguYGvGnJhZus47UupX4IG5K_Q0

Decisions made about the proposals:

ceeg_event BIGINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, -- References campaign_events.event_id

Shouldn't it be ceeg_event_id, as it is for other tables like: ce_event_wikis -> ceew_event_id, ce_event_topics -> ceet_event_id

Yes, make sense thanks @JFernandez-WMF and @Daimona

+1 to what Daimona said, and:

I see, I suppose something like that would work, although it looks very complex. Maybe it would be possible to simplify by putting all goals in disjunctive normal form (for example), so we don't have to store operators; it still looks quite complex, but maybe that's just me not having a clear enough picture.

Hi @Daimona I will move it to product sign-off, thanks for looking into it.

We decided in today’s meeting to leave it as it is. This means that if the user has only one contribution to delete and deletes it, we will not automatically remove the “Actions” column. However, it will no longer be visible after refreshing the page if there are no contributions left to delete, which is the current status quo.

Done, but for
Priority 3: Breakdown of association methods (i.e., number of post-publication adds, manual adds, manual removes) - may or may not be possible - we can look and see

• To get the number of post-publication adds, manual adds, is not possible because there is no way to differentiate them.

How would that work? For example, how would it represent the JSON blob I put as an example in T407028#11402480?

Thanks @vaughnwalters and @Daimona, I was able to reproduce it now, I created a patch to fix it, will move this task to code review

The investigation looks good to me, thanks @MHorsey-WMF

In T408024#11381862, @vaughnwalters wrote:

If a user removes all of the edits that they are associated with, then the actions column will still display until page refresh. Should we hard refresh the page after all events that are associated with a user are deleted, so that the actions column is removed? Besides this case, it is working as expected.

Thanks for the detailed analysis — this all sounds good. I just have one concern regarding the JSON blob approach. Because of the limitations you mentioned, I would prefer *not* to store goals as JSON blob data.

In T409757#11380560, @vaughnwalters wrote:

✅ Move lock icon for private participants to left side

This ticket was created as a response to the wrapping noted in T408257#11342005, and this wrapping is still occurring even with the icon moved to the left side.

I think this should maybe be reverted since 1. It doesn't fix the issue and 2. creates an inconsistency because the lock icon is on the left side here, but remains on the right side of the username in the participants tab.

Thoughts?

We do need a database change: event-specific opt-out can’t rely on global user preferences because they only store fixed per-user keys, not per-event state. To persist “don’t show the post-edit modal for this event” we have to extend CampaignEvents data, e.g. add a boolean field like cep_hide_post_edit_modal to ce_participants. That keeps the flag scoped to each participant/event pair and lets us query/update it alongside other participant metadata.

I did some tests on having more than one pagination in the same special page, I created a POC, and sounds to work, so I would like your feedback to see if it could be a possible implementation.

Hi @vaughnwalters, I have tested it on the maser branch, and I was not able to reproduce it anymore, I think this was fixed in some of the other tasks we did, let me know if you can still reproduce it, thank you!

Just as a note, we decided that the max per page limit will be changed from 50 to 500.
cc: @ifried

In T408822#11332805, @vaughnwalters wrote:

Heya @cmelo how do I test this one?

Hi @ifried I added a tooltip for when the user mouse over the trash icon, I just added it to the AC, and would like to confirm with you if this is ok.
What I added to the AC was:

• And the icon has a tooltip with the message "Remove contribution" on mouse over

In T400722#11308584, @vaughnwalters wrote:

In T400722#11305536, @cmelo wrote:

QA note - the timestamp is correctly used as a secondary sort key, but it is currently used as a secondary sort key in ascending order, whereas when timestamp is used as the default, it is used in descending order. I >>feel this secondary timestamp sort key should also be descending, as it is when the default view for the contributions tab is viewed. This would make the experience more consistent, IMO. Thoughts @cmelo? see >>current behavior below

I agree, I will take a look to understand the reason why, thanks!

Okay thanks @cmelo. I can create a new ticket too if that is easier.

Hi @ifried ,
Following up on our backlog refinement discussion where we decided to set the pagination limit to 50 for now, due to performance issues: