[Wikitech-l] Lua templating; module:fallback indexing a null value errors.

[Brenton Horne]

Hi,

On my local Wiki (i.e., @localhost) I have Scribunto installed, and I 
have copied several templates from Wikimedia Commons including 
Template:Derivative versions 
, 
Template:Autotranslate 
 and its Lua 
dependency, Module:Fallback 
. On my Wiki the 
Template:Derivative versions page, is giving the script error:


   Lua error in Module:Fallback at line 73: attempt to index a nil value.

   Backtrace:

1. *(tail call)*: ?
2. *Module:Fallback:73
   
*:
   in function "fallbackpage"
3. *Module:Fallback:99
   
*:
   in function "chunk"
4. *mw.lua:497*: ?
5. *(tail call)*: ?
6. *[C]*: in function "xpcall"
7. *MWServer.lua:87*: in function "handleCall"
8. *MWServer.lua:301*: in function "dispatch"
9. *MWServer.lua:40*: in function "execute"
   10. *mw_main.lua:7*: in main chunk
   11. *[C]*: ?

Thanks for your time,
Brenton
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] 503 errors in Phabricator

[Pine W]

I figured it out: this error happens whenever I use advanced search with my
browser cookies disabled. This appears to be a bug in Phabricator.

Pine
On Mar 6, 2015 3:20 AM, "Quim Gil"  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Yes I'm still getting 503 errors. They happen whenever I use the advanced
> > search tool.
> >
>
> Next time you see one, please share the URL and (if possible) the details
> of the query you are running. Maybe you are hitting
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90418 or a version of it.
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] Roadmap and deployment highlights - week of March 9th

[Greg Grossmeier]

Hello and welcome to the latest edition of the WMF Engineering Roadmap
and Deployment update.

The full log of planned deployments next week can be found at:


For a longer term view, see the new Roadmap project in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/roadmap/

A quick list of notable items for next week...

== Week of... ==

* Deploy RESTBase (separate announcement to follow)
** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89481

* Use RESTBase for Visual ditor from the MediaWiki Virtual Rest Service
** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89066

== Tuesday ==

* MediaWiki deploy
** group1 to 1.25wmf20: All non-Wikipedia sites (Wiktionary, Wikisource,
   Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, and a few other sites)
** 


== Wednesday ==

* MediaWiki deploy
** group2 to 1.25wmf20 (all Wikipedias)
** group0 to 1.25wmf21 (test/test2/testwikidata/mediawiki)



Thanks and as always, questions and comments welcome,

Greg
-- 
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] OOjs UI 0.9.0 Release

[Trevor Parscal]

OOjs UI 0.9.0 was released on Wednesday. It will be in MW from 1.25wmf21+.
As there are several breaking changes, please look carefully over them to
determine if they affect your code.

*Breaking changes since last release:*

   - [BREAKING CHANGE] Remove innerOverlay (Ed Sanders)

We've tagged this as a breaking change, but this was an internal-only
feature that we never made part of the public API. We no longer use it
since the removal of iframe support in v0.7.0.


   - [BREAKING CHANGE] TextInputWidget: Remove 'icon' and 'indicator'
   events (Bartosz Dziewoński)

Deprecated in v0.8.0, at which point they were already unused as far as we
are aware.


   - [BREAKING CHANGE] Remove deprecated LookupInputWidget (Bartosz
   Dziewoński)

Deprecated in v0.6.3, at which point they were already unused as far as we
are aware.


   - [BREAKING CHANGE] Remove deprecated GridLayout (Bartosz Dziewoński)

Deprecated in v0.7.0, at which point they were already unused as far as we
are aware.


*Deprecation changes since last major release:*

   - [DEPRECATING CHANGE] Rename setPosition to setLabelPosition (Ed
   Sanders)

This function in TextInputWidget is probably only used privately on
intialise,  so it's unlikely to be a breaking change in the real world, but
flagging here.


Additional details are in the full change log
. If you
have any further questions or need help dealing with deprecations, please
let me know. As always, general library documentation is available at
mediawiki.org  and generated code-level
documentation at doc.mediawiki.org
.

- Trevor
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] New feature: tool edit

[Petr Bena]

I randomly opened RecentChanges page on enwiki and this is what I saw:
http://img.ctrlv.in/img/15/03/06/54f9d5645eb03.png from 50 edits, at
least 8 were automated, just as much interesting as any regular bot
edit.

It usually is even worse, anyway as you can see about 20% of all edits
you can see now in recent changes are automated "bot-like" edits made
by humans. When I enable "show bots" from 50 edits I see 1 edit made
by a bot. From simple observing of recent changes you will see that
bots are producing far less edits than users with automated tools.
Still bots are problem that needs to be filtered out, while these
users are not?

This was originally my point. I don't really care if we just extend
bot flag for regular users as well, or if we create a new flag, but we
should do something about this. It would definitely make life of many
users easiers, especially those who actively review the contributions
of others.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
 wrote:
>  no way represents anything official>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Ricordisamoa 
> wrote:
>
>> It is complex and bureaucratic on the English Wikipedia, i.e., less than
>> 1/890 of the projects.
>>
>
> I note that enwiki's process for receiving the bot flag and rules around
> bot editing are "complex and bureaucratic" in large part because what one
> person thinks is an obvious fix that no one could object to (e.g.
> "==Section==" versus "== Section ==") turns out result in a huge outcry
> when a bot is doing it all over the place.
>
> The idea is that the review process (which is basically just having one of
> a list of experienced bot operators look over the proposal for problems,
> then review some sample edits) will hopefully catch problems before they
> become a big deal, and the rules make it easier to stop for (hopefully)
> calm discussion rather than arguing while perceived disruption continues.
>
> Instead, I think bots are easily tricked by edge cases, whereas human
>> intervention usually decreases the chance of mistakes.
>>
>
> On the other hand, a tool may be more aggressive with proposing changes
> that would be fooled by edge cases while relying on the human to fix it
> before submitting. Even if the tool is not being more aggressive, the human
> is vulnerable to missing an error through inattention or through
> misunderstanding their responsibility and blindly clicking "approve".
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] New feature: tool edit

[Petr Bena]

If there are some issues that tool edits should be reviewed
differently than bot edits, then it is just another reason to make a
separate flag independent from bot flag for these edits. That way both
tool and bot edits could be filtered out and reviewed separately.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Petr Bena  wrote:
> I randomly opened RecentChanges page on enwiki and this is what I saw:
> http://img.ctrlv.in/img/15/03/06/54f9d5645eb03.png from 50 edits, at
> least 8 were automated, just as much interesting as any regular bot
> edit.
>
> It usually is even worse, anyway as you can see about 20% of all edits
> you can see now in recent changes are automated "bot-like" edits made
> by humans. When I enable "show bots" from 50 edits I see 1 edit made
> by a bot. From simple observing of recent changes you will see that
> bots are producing far less edits than users with automated tools.
> Still bots are problem that needs to be filtered out, while these
> users are not?
>
> This was originally my point. I don't really care if we just extend
> bot flag for regular users as well, or if we create a new flag, but we
> should do something about this. It would definitely make life of many
> users easiers, especially those who actively review the contributions
> of others.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
>  wrote:
>> > no way represents anything official>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Ricordisamoa 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is complex and bureaucratic on the English Wikipedia, i.e., less than
>>> 1/890 of the projects.
>>>
>>
>> I note that enwiki's process for receiving the bot flag and rules around
>> bot editing are "complex and bureaucratic" in large part because what one
>> person thinks is an obvious fix that no one could object to (e.g.
>> "==Section==" versus "== Section ==") turns out result in a huge outcry
>> when a bot is doing it all over the place.
>>
>> The idea is that the review process (which is basically just having one of
>> a list of experienced bot operators look over the proposal for problems,
>> then review some sample edits) will hopefully catch problems before they
>> become a big deal, and the rules make it easier to stop for (hopefully)
>> calm discussion rather than arguing while perceived disruption continues.
>>
>> Instead, I think bots are easily tricked by edge cases, whereas human
>>> intervention usually decreases the chance of mistakes.
>>>
>>
>> On the other hand, a tool may be more aggressive with proposing changes
>> that would be fooled by edge cases while relying on the human to fix it
>> before submitting. Even if the tool is not being more aggressive, the human
>> is vulnerable to missing an error through inattention or through
>> misunderstanding their responsibility and blindly clicking "approve".
>> ___
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] New feature: tool edit

[Brad Jorsch (Anomie)]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Ricordisamoa 
wrote:

> It is complex and bureaucratic on the English Wikipedia, i.e., less than
> 1/890 of the projects.
>

I note that enwiki's process for receiving the bot flag and rules around
bot editing are "complex and bureaucratic" in large part because what one
person thinks is an obvious fix that no one could object to (e.g.
"==Section==" versus "== Section ==") turns out result in a huge outcry
when a bot is doing it all over the place.

The idea is that the review process (which is basically just having one of
a list of experienced bot operators look over the proposal for problems,
then review some sample edits) will hopefully catch problems before they
become a big deal, and the rules make it easier to stop for (hopefully)
calm discussion rather than arguing while perceived disruption continues.

Instead, I think bots are easily tricked by edge cases, whereas human
> intervention usually decreases the chance of mistakes.
>

On the other hand, a tool may be more aggressive with proposing changes
that would be fooled by edge cases while relying on the human to fix it
before submitting. Even if the tool is not being more aggressive, the human
is vulnerable to missing an error through inattention or through
misunderstanding their responsibility and blindly clicking "approve".
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikitech] Wikimedia Hackathon Lyon: registrations opened

[Quim Gil]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Petr Bena  wrote:

> I have a question regarding scholarship: is there a way to indicate
> that I would like to apply for a full scholarship, but in case the
> application wouldn't pass, I am also interested in partial
> scholarship?
>

This and other details not fitting in the form can be explained in the
Comments field.

Matt, I agree we need a scholarships section or link at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lyon_Hackathon_2015. The local organizers or
myself will publish more information soon.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] 503 errors in Phabricator

[Quim Gil]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Yes I'm still getting 503 errors. They happen whenever I use the advanced
> search tool.
>

Next time you see one, please share the URL and (if possible) the details
of the query you are running. Maybe you are hitting
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90418 or a version of it.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] New feature: tool edit

[Ricordisamoa]

Il 23/02/2015 15:03, Petr Bena ha scritto:

I don't believe that users would actually use it if this permission
was so hard to obtain as bot flag is (on english wiki). If there was
such a huge complex bureaucratic process for this, most of users would
just keep doing semi-automated edits as regular edits. The summary of
differences between flags:
It is complex and bureaucratic on the English Wikipedia, i.e., less than 
1/890 of the projects.

* Bot edits are usually more trusted and are evaluated and reviewed by
different people. That means bot edits can be safely ignored by most
of users. This wouldn't really apply for semi-automated edits made by
users. They are still humans and they make mistakes, they should be
reviewed by admins, other users etc at some point. But most of regular
users can safely ignore them.
Instead, I think bots are easily tricked by edge cases, whereas human 
intervention usually decreases the chance of mistakes.

* Bot flags is hard to obtain, usually a matter of weeks. "Tool flag"
shouldn't be any harder than getting rollback permissions.

It very much depends on the case.

* Bot flag applies for all edits, tool flag should be used only for some edits.
* Bots are robots (non-thinking processes) that work fully
automatically. Tool edits would be made by people. There is a
difference between these 2 BUT should this difference be visible?
(this is actually a question)

In case that there is no need to differentiate between bot edits and
automated edits made by users, let's rename "bot" to "automated edit"
in bot flag (and rename whole bot flag) using different letter (b ->
a) and let's make it possible for trusted users to flag their edits as
"automated edit" even without requirement to be in "bot group". Eg.
bots would still have higher API limits, regular users not, but both
trusted and bots could mark their edits as "automated".

IMHO I don't think we need to be make a distinction between bots and
people. Bots should have "bot" in their username which makes it simple
to see if edit was made by robot or human and in both cases the edits
are automated.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Bináris  wrote:

2015-02-11 14:02 GMT+01:00 Ricordisamoa:


Keep in mind that it isn't always easy to tell 'tool' and 'bot' edits
apart. Several scripts can perform actions whose degree of automation
varies widely.
For my part, I make most of my semi-automated edits using my bot's
account, but many users also have separate 'flood' accounts for use with
Wikidata Game  and similar
tools.


Definitely this is the point. In enwiki's environment the word "bot" is
usually meant as a fully automated tool, while other communities treat it
differently. Let's see a major utility of Pywikibot, replace.py. This is
equally prepared for automatic and semiautomatic mode, and some tasks may
be solved automatically, while others -- above all spelling corrections --
manually. This still means a very high speed rate of editing but it is
human-controlled.
If I use it in manual mode, it is a tool, and when I see it working well,
and at a given point I choose "a" (replace all) instead of "y" (yes,
replace actual occurance), it suddenly becomes a bot?

I think these tool-assisted edits like AWB are essentially bot edits with
human contribution: high speed, huge amount of edits in a short time that
may be misused before anybody notices. Either they flood recent changes or
if they are hidden, they are very hard to notice in case of a mistake and
even harder to undo. Therefore the right of using AWB is equal to the right
of using PWB and should require a highly trusted user in my opinion.

That does not mean I am against a new group (which still means that every
community may use or not use it); that means I don't see any important
difference between "bot" and "tool" account.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] 503 errors in Phabricator

[Pine W]

Hi Giuseppe,

Yes I'm still getting 503 errors. They happen whenever I use the advanced
search tool.

Pine
On Mar 6, 2015 12:35 AM, "Giuseppe Lavagetto" 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm using phabricator regularly this morning (including doing pretty
> advanced searches) and I cannot reproduce the problem, but I am surely
> no expert.
>
> Is it still ongoing? Which urls in particular is giving you 503s?
>
> Cheers
>
> Giuseppe
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> > I'm repeatedly getting 503 errors when attemping to search Phabricator.
> Can
> > someone check into this please?
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] 503 errors in Phabricator

[Giuseppe Lavagetto]

Hi,

I'm using phabricator regularly this morning (including doing pretty
advanced searches) and I cannot reproduce the problem, but I am surely
no expert.

Is it still ongoing? Which urls in particular is giving you 503s?

Cheers

Giuseppe

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> I'm repeatedly getting 503 errors when attemping to search Phabricator. Can
> someone check into this please?
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikitech] Wikimedia Hackathon Lyon: registrations opened

[Petr Bena]

I have a question regarding scholarship: is there a way to indicate
that I would like to apply for a full scholarship, but in case the
application wouldn't pass, I am also interested in partial
scholarship?

Partial scholarship is still better than none, in which case I might
not be able to attend at all...

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Matthew Flaschen
 wrote:
> On 03/05/2015 12:16 PM, Sylvain Boissel wrote:
>>
>> *The registration is now open* and also includes the possibility to
>> apply for a travel, accommodation or full scholarship; You can find the
>> form at https://dons.wikimedia.fr/civicrm/event/register?reset=1&id=8
>
>
> How should volunteer developers fill it out if they are applying for a full
> scholarship (and attendance is conditional on that)?
>
> I see the "Are you a volunteer developer needing sponsorship?: yes, travel
> and accommodation" pair.
>
> However, there are some other questions where it's not clear how someone
> should/might respond (e.g. Accomodation, Payment method).
>
> A scholarships section or link at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lyon_Hackathon_2015 would also be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] 503 errors in Phabricator

[Pine W]

I'm repeatedly getting 503 errors when attemping to search Phabricator. Can
someone check into this please?

Pine
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l