Indeed. For transparency, Joseph, Andrew and myself had a meeting late
last week to talk about how we handle these issues. The resolution was
to go for positive, as well as negative, checking, probably using
Christian's "guard" framework.
So, for example, suppose we want to make sure projects are what we
want; one way is to have unit tests that contain things we do and
don't want and to make sure they all pass on example data. But in
addition we can build a list of /all/ the projects we want and have
the pageviews_hourly table run through that list once every N, issuing
an error if there are projects that appear that aren't in the list.
Sometimes they will be false positives, but that is the advantage of
positive checks - when it is wrong it tells you. When unit tests are
wrong they don't always ;)
On 23 August 2015 at 04:34, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Tilman Bayer, 22/08/2015 19:33:
And I know that other issues were caught by ErikZ's proactive vigilance,
which will need to find an equivalent in the upcoming replacement for
Wikistats.
+1
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
Wikimedia Foundation