Wikitech-l September 2014

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

129 participants
123 discussions

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM
by Pine W 21 Sep '14

21 Sep '14

Just a few thoughts: * I agree that the tone of the email that started this discussion about software quality standards was unnecessarily critical. Even in production releases, users may find occasional bugs. * The intent of HHVM implementation and James' quick response to the problem report are nice to see. * The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, especially for opt-in pre-production releases. * Regarding standards for different release phases, I would need to think more about that but hope that someone will set up a proposed checklist on MediaWiki.org. We have some quality experts like Chris McMahon and their input would be helpful. Pine

1 0

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM
by Pine W 21 Sep '14

21 Sep '14

Thanks, but I'm looking for something that is more specific to MediaWiki and that commits development teams to specific, standardized, and transparently measured quality metrics as products advance or regress in their path to production release. Pine

3 2

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM
by Pine W 21 Sep '14

21 Sep '14

Given longtime experience with problematic releases of MediaWiki features, I think that published quality standards that products must meet in order to become production releases could help to limit the number and seriousness of additional troubled launches. These standards would also reduce the ambiguity around terms like alpha and beta. Pine

1 0

[BREAKING CHANGE] Deprecated JavaScript methods to be removed in MediaWiki 1.25
by Krinkle 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

TL;DR: * Several deprecated methods in MediaWiki's JavaScript modules will be removed in a few weeks' time. * Ensure your code no longer uses these methods and update it if needed. * Check and fix any gadgets or scripts you or your wikis rely upon. As part of the regular update cycle, a number of deprecated methods in our JavaScript modules will be removed in the MediaWiki 1.25 release. This is an announcement to give people notice they should update any extensions, gadgets and scripts they have written, maintain, or rely upon. Usually we don't give this much attention to removal of deprecated methods, but due to this being our first proper development cycle for our front-end code base, I want to make sure this reaches everyone. You're likely not yet in the habit of updating front-end code between MediaWiki releases. Deprecated methods to be removed in MediaWiki 1.25: * Remove mw.user.name() method. [1] Deprecated since MediaWiki 1.20. Use mw.user.getName() instead. * Remove mw.user.anon() method. [1] Deprecated since MediaWiki 1.20: Use mw.user.isAnon() instead. * Remove mediawiki.api methods' "ok" and "err" callback parameters. [2] Deprecated since MediaWiki 1.23. Use the returned Promise interface instead. * Remove mediawiki.api.category "async" parameter. [2] Deprecated since MediaWiki 1.23. The ability to override $.ajax() to be synchronous has been removed. The default (asynchronous) behaviour remains. Use the Promise interface to retreive the fetched data from the API. * Remove jquery.json module. Deprecated since MediaWiki 1.24. [3] Use standardised JSON.stringify and JSON.parse methods. And depend on the "json" module which will automatically load a polyfill in older browsers. ## Timeline These removals will land in MediaWiki 1.25alpha in early October 2014, and deployed to Wikimedia wikis the week after from October 4th onwards (1.25wmf2). The MediaWiki 1.25.0 stable release is expected to come out around April 2015. You should make sure that your code is updated before your wiki upgrades to MediaWiki 1.25. If you know code you rely upon will be affected but don't know how to fix it, please check with your wiki's community for local experts. If none of them can help, you can ask for assistance on the wikitech-ambassadors mailing list. [5] ## Reminders In case you've missed the previous announcements: * The migration period for jQuery core is still on-going and is also scheduled for MediaWiki 1.25. [4] More about that in the mail from June 2014: https://www.mail-archive.com/mediawiki-l%40lists.wikimedia.org/msg13651.html * Learn about deprecation notices and how you can see them in your browser. https://www.mail-archive.com/wikitech-l%40lists.wikimedia.org/msg72198.html [1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/111422/ [2] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/118733/ [3] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/140560/ [4] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/137168/ [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors -- Krinkle PS: You can get a sense of the progress on our different migrations, past and present, via these graphs: http://codepen.io/Krinkle/full/zyodJ/

1 0

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM
by Guillaume Paumier 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

Hello, On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Rand McRanderson <therandshow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Here is one idea. A dashboard of top level Wikimedia projects with > statuses, estimates, and a key to terms. Or does this exist? There is https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Dashboard It doesn't have everything you mentioned, but we can build on it and improve it. -- Guillaume Paumier

1 0

Fixing PollNY -- ResourceLoader woes
by Jack Phoenix 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

Hi all, A few days ago I was fiddling around with my Labs instance [1], which serves as a development/testing/showcase area for social tools [2]. Somehow I ended up on Special:ViewPoll [3] and got curious as to why a JavaScript hover effect (mouseover/mouseout) didn't work on that page -- I was sure it used to work just fine not that long time ago. Without thinking that much about it, I clicked on the one and only poll listed on the page [4], and turns out the whole Poll: page is about as broken as it can be due to a JavaScript error. After a while of debugging, consultation and more debugging, turned out that my local development setup had $wgResourceLoaderDebug = true; in its LocalSettings.php, which apparently hides some race conditions or something like that. The Labs instance tries to be a more faithful representation of a production wiki, and as such, it doesn't have this setting enabled and hence why the problem manifests there. PollNY itself is a rather old extension, as most original social tools are (see the MW.org page [2] for details), and as such, it likely has some non-optimal code and it's also gone through plenty of iterations in the past. As a matter of fact, when porting PollNY to use ResourceLoader, it seems I myself made some suboptimal choices, such as bundling both CSS and JS into the same module and loading this module with 'position' => 'top'. Anyway, after decoupling the main CSS into its own module (locally, haven't submitted this to git yet), tweaking the callers and whatnot, I was able to get the hover effects on Special:ViewPoll to work as intended. While this is definitely a step forward, the actual problem with pages in the Poll: namespace still persists. PollNY has two JS files, LightBox.js and Poll.js. LightBox.js contains a lightbox implementation and technically it's not needed for stuff like the <pollembed> tag etc. and it should only be loaded on Poll: pages. Poll.js, on the other hand, is basically needed everywhere where there is PollNY; special pages, pages that embed a poll via the <pollembed> tag, Poll: pages... Now, the actual issue is that no matter what I do, I get a "TypeError: 'LightBox' is not defined" on Poll: pages (such as [4]). In the git master version, this is due to the aforementioned race condition: line 466 of Poll.js tries to use mw.loader.load() to load the LightBox RL module if it's not already loaded, but in RL's production mode this fails, because, as I've been told by those with more intimate knowledge of ResourceLoader and its inner workings, mw.loader.load is asynchronous. I've tried mw.loader.using, but it doesn't seem to do anything as far as fixing the issue goes. Please let me know if you're able to help me out with this; I've ran out of ideas. [1] http://social-tools.wmflabs.org/ [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Social_tools [3] http://social-tools.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:ViewPoll [4] http://social-tools.wmflabs.org/wiki/Poll:How_is_the_weather_today%3F Thanks and regards, -- Jack Phoenix MediaWiki developer

4 7

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
by Tilman Bayer 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the Foundation's Growth team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarter… . On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi folks, > > to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course > corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me > and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, > starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according > to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the > Board [1]: > > - Visual Editor > - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) > - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) > - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity > > I'm proposing the following initial schedule: > > January: > - Editor Engagement Experiments > > February: > - Visual Editor > - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) > > March: > - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) > - Funds Dissemination Committee > > We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly > metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on > their recent progress, which will help set some context that would > otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will > also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. > > My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly > review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as > meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this > discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here > which we can use to discuss the concept further: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r… > > The internal review will, at minimum, include: > > Sue Gardner > myself > Howie Fung > Team members and relevant director(s) > Designated minute-taker > > So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual > Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. > > I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a > duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: > > - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, > compared with goals > - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? > - Review of challenges, blockers and successes > - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other > action items > - Buffer time, debriefing > > Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved > structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases > where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. > > In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be > to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than > a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews > may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally > to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in > engineering. > > As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can > help inform and support reviews across the organization. > > Feedback and questions are appreciated. > > All best, > Erik > > [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings > -- > Erik Möller > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB

1 0

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM
by Pine W 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

Do we have a published guideline somewhere about MediaWiki quality standards for pre-alpha, alpha, beta, and production releases of elements like MediaViewer, VisualEditor, Flow, Winter, and HHVM? Pine On Sep 20, 2014 12:14 AM, "Jon Work" <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > :} I am always impressed by those of you for whom English is not your > native tongue. It can be very complicated to understand some of the > shortcuts we use. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 20 Sep 2014, at 02:22, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > > Anders Wennersten wrote: > >> I also did soma very subjective test on response times and found the new > >> feature to give 1-3 s quicker response, which is quite much (6s-5s, > >> 7s-4s) and make a big difference in the user experience. > > > > Woo! :D > > > >> Also after reflecting on my little harsh reaction on the deployment > >> process, I wonder if it is not a language/communication issue > >> > >> Being a non-native English speaking person I must admit I have no idea > >> of the meaning "intrepid" means in "for intrepid beta testers". It > >> seems for Guillaume it means "hey this is badly tested, but use if you > >> have patience/courage" which I can accept as a message of a testrelease > >> > >> Also in my backgroud working in a company making internal deployment of > >> software for 4000 internal users, I am used of making a huge difference > >> in "ready for Alpha test" and "ready for Beta test", but perhaps my > >> reference frame is inappropriate in this case, where perhaps a beta > >> functionality means "Software for testing, not ready for release" and > >> covering both my distinctions > >> > >> So I apologize if I used too strong wordings and instead want to > >> congratulate you on releasing a good function where you so speedily > >> fixed the bug! > > > > No worries. Thank you for taking the time to write up this message > > explaining. I think there are definitely ways in which we can improve our > > communication about beta (or alpha!) features, including attempting to > > label them appropriately and making sure the message is suitably clear. > > Your constructive feedback will help us do better in the future. > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 0

OOjs, MobileFrontend and Flow
by Jon Robson 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

Shahyar, Juliusz, Trevor, Roan and I met to discuss using oojs inside the mobile and Flow projects. The following 3 patches kicks off moving MobileFrontend's class model towards that of oojs - many thanks for Roan for doing most of the legwork :-): https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/155593 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/155589 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/129336 On the long term we'd look to swap out the Class.js and eventemitter.js files in MobileFrontend for oojs, but this is going to be tricky and require some care, possibly mixing both oojs and MobileFrontend's class code in the repository at the same time. e.g. increasing JavaScript on the short term, but reducing it on the longterm. The MobileFrontend core development team will need to work out how best to manage this transition. Since Flow is very DOM-focused, as opposed to many smaller JavaScript modules with element management per the currently-accepted use of OOjs, it is unclear how we may go about integrating with OOjs fully. However, some potential use cases have been identified as candidates for implementing OOjs on an interim basis, primarily by abstracting some current FlowBoardComponent workflows, such as those which handle (re-)rendering of existing and new content fetched from the API.

3 6

Roadmap and deployment highlights - week of Sept 22nd
by Greg Grossmeier 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

Hello and welcome to the latest edition of the WMF Engineering Roadmap and Deployment update. The full log of planned deployments next week can be found at: <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments#Week_of_September_22nd> A quick list of notable items... == Tuesday == * MediaWiki deploy ** group1 to 1.24wmf22: All non-Wikipedia sites (Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, and a few other sites) ** <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.24/wmf22> == Thursday == * MediaWiki deploy ** group2 to 1.24wmf22 (all Wikipedias) ** group0 to 1.24wmf23 (test/test2/testwikidata/mediawiki) Thanks and as always, questions and comments welcome, Greg -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
13
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Wikitech-l September 2014