There are no false positives at all, since it tests it by actually loading
it into Lua.
I think a total disallow is warranted because letting the page be saved
with such an error means that the entire module is 100% useless (and will
break every page that uses it) until someone fixes it.
Jackmcbarn
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:53 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Jackmcbarn wrote:
Scribunto has an option to allow code to be saved
even if it contains
syntax errors that prevent it from ever working. The original reason for
this feature was to make it more convenient to save incomplete code.
However, in practice, this has never been used for its intended purpose,
and users who don't know any Lua are breaking otherwise-functional modules
with it. Because of this, and because it's easy enough to save incomplete
code by simply wrapping it all in a multiline comment, I plan to remove
the option unless objections are raised.
As long as false positives are low, this is probably fine. It'd be nice to
get rid of the checkbox as it's user interface clutter.
That said, a hard block is still pretty potent... I wonder whether simply
warning the user and auto-categorizing the pages as likely broken on page
save would be adequate.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l