Change Details

As an editor I want to restrict the entity type to which a constraint applies in order to avoid false constraint violations. **Problem:** It is currently not possible to restrict the entity type (Item, Property, Lexeme, Form, Sense) to which a constraint should apply. This would be useful because a Property is sometimes used in different contexts in the different entity types. **Example:** https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P443&oldid=1316228429#P443$8116725c-4f59-8b08-31bc-99eeb5dd52df should be checked on Items but not on Lexemes **BDD** GIVEN a constraint definition WHEN it includes a restriction on the entity type it applies to THEN no constraint violations are triggered on the excluded entity types **Format:** - a separate configuration variable for the “constraint scope (entity)” property, but using the same default as the existing “scope” parameter (`P4680`) - allowed values are the same as for the “allowed entity types” constraint **Acceptance criteria:** [ ] no constraint violations are triggered on entity types that are excluded by the constraint definition [ ] warnings for invalid “scope” parameters include the newly allowed values (item, property, etc.) in the warning message (“X is not a valid value, must be one of…”) [ ] the maintenance script to import constraint entities doesn’t break when two of the variables default to the same property **Open questions:** * Should we exclude certain entity types or include? So should we have a allow or deny list? ** -> listing the types where the constraint should be checked (which also matches how constraint scope works right now) * What should this be called? * Should we reuse the scope parameter?

As an editor I want to restrict the entity type to which a constraint applies in order to avoid false constraint violations. **Problem:** It is currently not possible to restrict the entity type (Item, Property, Lexeme, Form, Sense) to which a constraint should apply. This would be useful because a Property is sometimes used in different contexts in the different entity types. **Example:** https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P443&oldid=1316228429#P443$8116725c-4f59-8b08-31bc-99eeb5dd52df should be checked on Items but not on Lexemes **BDD** GIVEN a constraint definition WHEN it includes a restriction on the entity type it applies to THEN no constraint violations are triggered on the excluded entity types **Format:** - a separate configuration variable for the “constraint scope (entity)” property, but using the same default as the existing “scope” parameter (`P4680`) - allowed values are the same as for the “allowed entity types” constraint **Acceptance criteria:** [ ] no constraint violations are triggered on entity types that are excluded by the constraint definition [ ] warnings for invalid “scope” parameters include the newly allowed values (item, property, etc.) in the warning message (“X is not a valid value, must be one of…”) [ ] the maintenance script to import constraint entities doesn’t break when two of the variables default to the same property **Open questions:** * Should we exclude certain entity types or include? So should we have a allow or deny list? ** -> listing the types where the constraint should be checked (which also matches how constraint scope works right now)

As an editor I want to restrict the entity type to which a constraint applies in order to avoid false constraint violations. **Problem:** It is currently not possible to restrict the entity type (Item, Property, Lexeme, Form, Sense) to which a constraint should apply. This would be useful because a Property is sometimes used in different contexts in the different entity types. **Example:** https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P443&oldid=1316228429#P443$8116725c-4f59-8b08-31bc-99eeb5dd52df should be checked on Items but not on Lexemes **BDD** GIVEN a constraint definition WHEN it includes a restriction on the entity type it applies to THEN no constraint violations are triggered on the excluded entity types **Format:** - a separate configuration variable for the “constraint scope (entity)” property, but using the same default as the existing “scope” parameter (`P4680`) - allowed values are the same as for the “allowed entity types” constraint **Acceptance criteria:** [ ] no constraint violations are triggered on entity types that are excluded by the constraint definition [ ] warnings for invalid “scope” parameters include the newly allowed values (item, property, etc.) in the warning message (“X is not a valid value, must be one of…”) [ ] the maintenance script to import constraint entities doesn’t break when two of the variables default to the same property **Open questions:** * Should we exclude certain entity types or include? So should we have a allow or deny list? ** -> listing the types where the constraint should be checked (which also matches how constraint scope works right now) * What should this be called? * Should we reuse the scope parameter?