https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34580

Liangent <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |---

--- Comment #13 from Liangent <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Appending and prepending text absolutely *should* throw edit conflicts. If
> two
> people try to prepend text at the same time, you cannot assume that "A B
> orig"
> (or "B A orig") is what either of them might have intended any more than you
> can assume that edits "orig1 A orig2" and "orig1 B orig2" should result in
> "orig1 A B orig2".
> 
> Consider for a particularly silly example where one person from the US
> prepends
> "{{cleanup|reason=The article is demonizing the subject}}" and one from the
> UK
> prepends "{{cleanup|reason=The article is demonising the subject}}". You'd
> end
> up with two tags at the top of the article saying effectively the same thing.
> 
> Real-life cases aren't usually this clearly ridiculous, but they occur often
> enough that were this bug fixed we'd certainly start to get bugs that edit
> conflicts were not being raised when people try to append or prepend the same
> thing at the same time. And that would be more hassle to clean up, because
> someone has to notice and then make a third edit to merge things. New
> sections
> on talk pages are the one exception to this, which is already filed as bug
> 22783.
> 
> Thus, I'm going to close this as WONTFIX.
> 

If someone is expecting the fact that there is no {{cleanup}} before their
edit, I believe they have downloaded wikitext (or rendered HTML) of the
original version, and checked there's no existing {{cleanup}}, before
submitting their edit. Now a basetimestamp which triggers edit conflict makes
sense here.

> 
> Also, for background:
> 
> An edit conflict happens any time that the submitted basetimestamp
> (wpEdittime
> in the GUI) is not the same as the timestamp on the most recent revision of
> the
> article. Every single time. But sometimes the conflict can be automatically
> resolved, if the changes from base→current and base→submitted can be merged.
> Improving this automatic edit conflict resolution is outside the scope of a
> bug
> against the API, and it would not surprise me if a bug about that already
> exists.
> 
> The API's appendtext and prependtext take the existing page content,
> append/prepend the text, and then treat it as if it were an edit of the
> entire
> page. This is the only way it can work until someone rewrites EditPage, which
> is also outside the scope of a bug against the API. This is also how section
> editing (particularly section=new) works, which is probably why Nemo marked
> this as a duplicate of the new-section bug.
> 

If no base revision is specified, the API module can just take the new version,
re-apply appendtext or prependtext on it, then try saving again.

> 
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > We had edit conflicts at Commons even when no timestamp was set.
> > "listRequestSubpage" and "notifyUploaders" never set a timestamp.
> 
> There are various possibilities for that. For example, if someone else's edit
> gets saved in between when ApiEditPage chooses a default basetimestamp for
> you
> and when EditPage actually checks for an edit conflict, that could do it.
> This
> could be more likely if ApiEditPage fetched that default basetimestamp from a
> lagged slave.
> 
> 
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > The general fix for all these edit conflicts is to write a variation of the
> > GNU diff3 file-merge program
> 
> Feel free to do so. Or hire someone to do it for you, if you lack the
> necessary
> skills. Or convince someone else that they should pay someone to do it for
> you.
> 
> What's not going to get it done is just asserting that "someone" should do it
> in every tangentially-related discussion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to