(I've been in my new job for 4 hours yet I'm still worrying about Flow content models. Such loyalty :) )
Good news: if you have the flow-create-board right, and if you're on a wiki with $wgContentHandlerUseDB set, then add-topic or edit-header creates a new Flow board. \o/ T76793 is resolved.
However, neither condition is set on enwiki. I added some more blocking tasks to T78640 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78640 (Co-op: bot can create a Flow board for each new mentored editor (tracking)).
Frances, do you have a wiki page explaining what the bot will do? Are you or ErikB (who comes back from break on Friday) working on T76785 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76785 (Co-op: get approval for hostbot to flow-create-board right) ?
I explained the issues to Danny that make T51193 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T51193 (Set $wgContentHandlerUseDB = true on all WMF wikis) contentious. I moved its blockers to a new T85847 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85847 (issues with granting the editcontentmodel right). We'd rather the Co-op bot *not* be tied to big discussions of changing content models and Flow taking over more talk pages, but it might get sucked in.
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/editcontentmodel has next steps for wgContentHandlerUseDB and a draft message about the changes for a Flow tech lead to eventually send out.
I'm happy to help, but someone else needs to take the reigns rains reins on this.
-- =S Page Collaboration team engineer
Hi S Page,
Good timing! As you were writing this I assigned myself the task of writing up what the bot will do, so it didn't linger on as an orphan. Frances and I can divvy up that work in whatever way it makes most sense.
Regarding T76785: I will handle the BAG request (and just re-assigned it to myself, since I'm the bot owner).
Our first priority is to test our whole workflow on testwiki. I see that MatchBot has the Flow-bot user right now, so are we good to go with testing creating a talkpage as a Flow board there?
Congrats on the promotion! I'll gladly take over shepherding this through from here on out. Thank you so much for your work with us,
J
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:05 PM, S Page spage@wikimedia.org wrote:
(I've been in my new job for 4 hours yet I'm still worrying about Flow content models. Such loyalty :) )
Good news: if you have the flow-create-board right, and if you're on a wiki with $wgContentHandlerUseDB set, then add-topic or edit-header creates a new Flow board. \o/ T76793 is resolved.
However, neither condition is set on enwiki. I added some more blocking tasks to T78640 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78640 (Co-op: bot can create a Flow board for each new mentored editor (tracking)).
Frances, do you have a wiki page explaining what the bot will do? Are you or ErikB (who comes back from break on Friday) working on T76785 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76785 (Co-op: get approval for hostbot to flow-create-board right) ?
I explained the issues to Danny that make T51193 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T51193 (Set $wgContentHandlerUseDB = true on all WMF wikis) contentious. I moved its blockers to a new T85847 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85847 (issues with granting the editcontentmodel right). We'd rather the Co-op bot *not* be tied to big discussions of changing content models and Flow taking over more talk pages, but it might get sucked in.
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/editcontentmodel has next steps for wgContentHandlerUseDB and a draft message about the changes for a Flow tech lead to eventually send out.
I'm happy to help, but someone else needs to take the reigns rains reins on this.
-- =S Page Collaboration team engineer
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Our first priority is to test our whole workflow on testwiki. I see that MatchBot has the Flow-bot user right now, so are we good to go with testing creating a talkpage as a Flow board there?
I'd really like to see this on beta labs if possible, hopefully in advance of testwiki and particularly in advance of test2wiki.
-C
Hi Chris,
Could you be a little more specific about what would you like to see on beta labs first, and how we can go about making that happen? I'm happy to follow whatever steps your team deems necessary--but I need to be pointed in the right direction.
Best, Jonathan
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Chris McMahon cmcmahon@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Our first priority is to test our whole workflow on testwiki. I see that MatchBot has the Flow-bot user right now, so are we good to go with testing creating a talkpage as a Flow board there?
I'd really like to see this on beta labs if possible, hopefully in advance of testwiki and particularly in advance of test2wiki.
-C
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Our first priority is to test our whole workflow on testwiki. I see that MatchBot has the Flow-bot user right now, so are we good to go with testing creating a talkpage as a Flow board there?
Should be. https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MatchBot suggests someone was trying it (on Christmas day!).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Chris McMahon cmcmahon@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd really like to see this on beta labs if possible, hopefully in advance of testwiki and particularly in advance of test2wiki.
Why, does QA usually get involved in testing bots and API calls? This isn't a user action amenable to browser testing. (FWIW the way I tested it on testwiki is * Open Firebug's [Net] tab. * Add a topic or edit header. * Copy the API request as cURL command line. * Modify the command line to perform the operation on a new talk page. * Success \o/ ** or failure if the page is already wikitext or I don't have the flow-create-board right, as expected ).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, S Page spage@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Our first priority is to test our whole workflow on testwiki. I see that MatchBot has the Flow-bot user right now, so are we good to go with testing creating a talkpage as a Flow board there?
Should be. https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MatchBot suggests someone was trying it (on Christmas day!).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Chris McMahon cmcmahon@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd really like to see this on beta labs if possible, hopefully in advance of testwiki and particularly in advance of test2wiki.
Why, does QA usually get involved in testing bots and API calls? This isn't a user action amenable to browser testing.
It's more getting the configuration correct (CommonSettings, InitializeSettings, database configuration, etc.) working in beta labs in order to discover any glitches that might occur before doing these updates in production. test2wiki is of particular concern because it is a peer node on the production cluster, it shares configuration with every other node on the Wikipedia cluster. Making a mistake in test2wiki can have serious consequences, better to make any mistake in beta labs first.
Beyond that, I'd really like the ability to set up and tear down multiple Flow pages with interesting content other than just http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Talk:Flow_QA for testing. (And in doing so, encounter any issues along those lines.)
(no longer about the Co-op bot...)
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Chris McMahon cmcmahon@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's more getting the configuration correct (CommonSettings, InitializeSettings, database configuration, etc.) working in beta labs in order to discover any glitches that might occur before doing these updates in production. test2wiki is of particular concern because it is a peer node on the production cluster, it shares configuration with every other node on the Wikipedia cluster. Making a mistake in test2wiki can have serious consequences, better to make any mistake in beta labs first.
There's no config change for this, I just gave MatchBot the 'flow-create-board' right on testwiki. We have a dormant wmf-config patch that creates a "flow-bot" group with this right, https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/181120/ , and yes that should be tested first on beta labs.
Beyond that, I'd really like the ability to set up and tear down multiple Flow pages with interesting content other than just http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Talk:Flow_QA for testing. (And in doing so, encounter any issues along those lines.)
Yes! I forgot about that. Back when we had bugs with initial edits to Flow boards, I meant to propose adding a Test_Flow_talk: namespace on beta labs and test2wiki in which Flow is enabled, so a test could simply visit Test_Flow_talk:Random_page_4795. If you gave the flow-create-board right to some selenium user, it could make an API call to edit-header or add-topic on any non-existent page and that would create a Flow board empty except for that one edit.
On 01/05/2015 07:22 PM, S Page wrote:
(no longer about the Co-op bot...)
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Chris McMahon <cmcmahon@wikimedia.org mailto:cmcmahon@wikimedia.org> wrote:
It's more getting the configuration correct (CommonSettings, InitializeSettings, database configuration, etc.) working in beta labs in order to discover any glitches that might occur before doing these updates in production. test2wiki is of particular concern because it is a peer node on the production cluster, it shares configuration with every other node on the Wikipedia cluster. Making a mistake in test2wiki can have serious consequences, better to make any mistake in beta labs first.There's no config change for this, I just gave MatchBot the 'flow-create-board' right on testwiki. We have a dormant wmf-config patch that creates a "flow-bot" group with this right, https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/181120/ , and yes that should be tested first on beta labs.
You put MatchBot in the flow-bot group (this group is created by the Flow extension).
We will need to give the appropriate user group on English Wikipedia the ability to add users to the flow-bot group (I am fairly certain neither sysops nor bureaucrats can do that today). I believe this group (the one in charge of adding bots to the bot groups) is "bureaucrat", but I would appreciate confirmation from someone familiar with the bot approval group.
I am fine with testing this config change in Beta Labs.
Matt