On 30 December 2012 23:31, Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com wrote:
The code in wikipedia.py is: elif self.comment() and username in self.comment(): raise LockedPage( u'Not allowed to edit %s because last edit maybe reverted' % self.title(asLink=True)) (line 1970)
It was added by xql in r10769: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py?r...
(you can find this yourself using the 'annotate' function in the repository browser.... or svn blame, but that takes ages)
Basically, I think there are two ways of improving this, as the basic idea of preventing reverts makes sense to me: a) using a less crude method to determine reverts of ourself - can't we detect the last revision's owner? I think that's p.userName()? b) using a different exception - one that more clearly signifies 'don't edit without user intervention' - on the other hand, that's sort of what LockedPage does! It tells the code: hey, you can only edit this with another user.
Of course, these type of messages in the argument of raise won't appear on user's screen, it is hidden into the source code. For some reason, Python does not show the message in user exceptions.
I cannot reproduce this:
raise wikipedia.LockedPage('something')
Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> pywikibot.exceptions.LockedPage: something
but maybe the exception was caught and rethrown without message (which would be the real wrongdo-er!)
This was my first experience with this kind of error so I was first frightened and confused and finally found out that I should use a force=True parameter, and so after waiting another 8 minutes I could save the page. I solved the case and lost 15-20 minutes.
Good to hear you have solved the problem - and sorry that it wasted that much time. But please also take from this that you should be prepared for exceptions when saving - you want to handle the exceptions in a sensible way, so the bot doesn't crash, wasting your time :-)
Anyway, I'd like xqt to make a note on this, so that we know the background of the original commit. I think the basic goals are OK, but maybe the implementation can use some improvements.
Merlijn