[13:07:14] Meh... that's annoying... someone remind to me to put in a ticket for [[MediaWiki:Undo-failure]] [13:07:14] http://enwp.org/MediaWiki:Undo-failure [13:07:28] @linkie-off [13:07:28] Links will not be automatically translated in this channel now [13:13:46] Why does it go to the english wikipedia? [13:17:22] Krenair: enwiki is set as defaultwiki O_O [13:17:29] [[meta:mäh]] [13:17:38] @linky [[meta:test]] [13:17:44] @link [[meta:test]] [13:17:44] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/test [16:42:21] when I try to get an edit token when not logged in, it returns an empty token (and no error or anything). Is that expected behaviour? [16:43:00] Yes, IIRC [16:43:14] I think there's a bug about that [16:44:46] ok, thanks [16:49:37] when using the API, if it is easier for me to POST, is there any reason not to ever GET (other than angering the REST gods)? [16:50:32] I don't think so [20:00:46] heh, someone was trying to push site limits to the edge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/0xFFFFFFF :P [20:04:40] hey, when do we expect etherpad.wikimedia.org will get monitoring? [20:05:32] I ask that because Ken mentioned that it should get monitoring before we do a big huge launch/announcement, and if marktraceur is now announcing "use etherpad.wikimedia.org instead of the wmflabs site" then I'd like to be able to forward that message to other people who use Etherpad..... [20:10:13] sumanah: IT was ksnider who gave me the OK to send the announce, so I assume his requirements are met [20:10:31] marktraceur: got it. Thank you! You can see why I was hesitating. [20:10:37] *nod* [20:10:40] marktraceur: I am happy to fwd to many lists. [20:10:47] wikimedia-l , labs-l, others [20:11:54] marktraceur: sumanah if it is of any help (probably not?) i see no specific monitoring in the puppet manifests for epl [20:11:59] *epl -> etherpadlite [20:12:08] I could be horribly wrong and this could be done elsewhere, of ocurse [20:16:55] marktraceur: I have fwded to labs-l and wikimedia-l (and the mediawiki enterprise list) [20:23:32] andre__: how can I get the resolution from the Bugzilla api ? [20:24:24] Also, is there a flag that can be gotten to find out if the ticket is a security ticket/unviewable by most? [20:24:47] !bug group:security [20:24:47] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=group%3asecurity [20:25:14] (this is obvs going to be empty for most of us normals) [20:25:44] you can also query which bugs were ever marked as security, btw [20:25:47] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=Security%20bugs%20last%20year&list_id=228353 [20:25:59] (that's one of the reasons i absolutely love bugzilla's search) [20:26:19] Yeah, I was wondering how to get if a specific ticket was with api [20:27:09] [[en:MediaWiki:Gadget-trackBug]] iirc [20:27:13] @link [20:27:13] http://enwp.org/MediaWiki:Gadget-trackBug [20:28:36] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-BugStatusUpdate.js ? [20:29:10] the api will proba bly act as if the bug didn't exist [20:31:41] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uporządkowane_linki_pod_oknem_edycji.png isn't this nice? :D [20:31:50] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-BugStatusUpdate.js [20:32:04] ^^^ I'm working on that. [20:33:16] hm, 49741? that looks like it'd be kinda old [20:33:18] -ish [20:33:45] On a copy in my sandbox [20:34:05] !b 49741 [20:34:05] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/49741 [20:34:11] it's a little uncool if it's not fixed yet [20:34:29] LOL [20:34:51] (hm, it's 2 months, not that bad) [20:35:20] I suppose I could make the script scrape the page for the error message... [20:35:36] andre__: !!! [20:35:50] I was told you are the bz api guru... [20:35:52] yeah. System unstable, sorry. [20:35:56] I am not. [20:36:13] all I know is http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.2/en/html/api/Bugzilla/WebService/Bug.html [20:36:21] I've played with it only a little bit [20:36:38] 4.2? [20:36:57] I thought mw was running 3.2.4? [20:38:50] ori-l: ping [20:39:41] dMaggot: hey? [20:40:00] ori-l: hi, is JsonSchema.php in EventLogging extension supposed to implement json-schema.org? [20:40:19] ori-l: that is, would you be willing to accept patches that take the validation closer to what's specified in json-schema.org? [20:41:11] dMaggot: i'd love patches [20:41:32] yes, it was tracking draft v3, but I did not implement the full spec [20:41:54] robla is the original author in fact [20:42:24] but he's diretor of platform engineering @ the foundation and so probably doesn't have much time to review patches [20:42:27] but i'd be happy to review them [20:42:36] what ori-l said :-) [20:43:03] I've *wanted* to work on this code, but alas, I just don't have the bandwidth to do anything with it. [20:43:42] fwiw, I've found that the json-schema draft isn't worth following. they don't seem to be converging on anything stable [20:43:49] Technical_13, 4.2.4 (with security patches from 4.2.6) [20:44:03] Technical_13, 3.2 would not even have an XML or JSON RPC interface [20:44:23] dMaggot|again: I don't know if you caught all of that [20:44:39] robla: no, missed everything (crappy connection here) [20:44:47] I'll pm you [20:45:08] andre__: my memory must have failed.. happens more and more... [20:45:21] * Lydia_WMDE waves @ dMaggot|again [20:45:36] Technical_13: Happens to me every day. That's why I outsource stuff to wikipages :) [20:47:08] robla: got your pm, thanks [20:47:30] hey dMaggot [20:47:45] YuviPanda: working on updating the patch [20:47:48] dMaggot: ty! [20:48:04] YuviPanda: I just wanted to make sure ori-l would accept the modifications for the validation thing, eventually [20:48:06] ori-l: what are your thoughts on the various drafts? [20:48:20] dMaggot: heh, yeah. send patches to EventLogging, I'll pick them up in UW at some point [20:48:27] robla: mostly in line w/yours; v3 seemed optimal, v4 more or less useless for validation [20:48:42] well, not 'optimal', but the best of the bunch [20:48:45] v2 was also fine :-) [20:49:18] as I recall, when I did the update, I was kinda miffed at the gratuitous updates that I needed to do [20:49:45] I don't know it, actually. I was fishing around for a means of describing JSON data and it seemed natural to use the latest draft, which at the time was v3. When v4 came out I looked and decided it wasn't worth it. [20:50:17] I haven't scrutinized v4, but after the v2->v3 experience, I felt like "meh, wait until they make it to proposed standard (RFC) before worrying about it" [20:50:58] yep. though i'm not optimistic :/ [20:51:20] ok, i'm in a meeting and shld pay attention :P [20:51:46] tch tch, you're growing old, ori-l :P [21:38:03] gn8 folks