First, kudos to the API team for going the extra mile
and reaching out to
the community to guide them through this process. This doesn't effect the
apps at the moment, but it's good to know you guys are thinking about
clients and how API changes affect them.
My question is: why does the default behavior need to change? Wouldn't
continuing with the default behavior allow people to continue using the
"rawcontinue" behavior for as long as we want to support it—without making
any changes?
On the other hand, if we don't want to support the old behavior, would it
be better to simply return an error (e.g. HTTP 400) instead of breaking
clients in a less explicit way? For example, as a client, I would prefer
my code failed faster (bad request) instead of failing more-or-less
silently.
Cheers,
Brian
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Yuri Astrakhan <yastrakhan(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I feel that bot operators should actively pay
attention to the technical
aspects of the community and the mailing lists. So, the bot operator who
never updates their software, doesn't pay attention to the announcements,
and ignores api warnings should be blocked after the deadline. Bot
operators do not operate in a vacuum, and should never run bots just for
the sake of running them.
Community should always be able to find and communicate with the bot
operators.
Obviously we should not make sudden changes (except in the
security/breaking matters), and try to make the process as easy as
possible. The rawcontinue param is exactly that, simply adding it will
keep
the logic as before.
Lastly, I again would like to promote the idea discussed at the hackathon
-- a client side minimalistic library that bigger frameworks like
pywikibot
rely on, and that is designed in part by the core developers. See the
proposal at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Minimalistic_MW_API_Cli…
On Jun 3, 2015 2:29 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Brad Jorsch
(Anomie)
<bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> ...
> I've compiled a list of bots that have hit the deprecation warning
more
> than 10000 times over the course of the week
May 23–29. If you are
> responsible for any of these bots, please fix them. If you know who
is,
please
make sure they've seen this notification. Thanks.
Thank you Brad for doing impact analysis and providing a list of the
71 bots with more than 10,000 problems per week. We can try to solve
those by working with the bot operators.
If possible, could you compile a list of bots affected at a lower
threshold - maybe 1,000. That will give us a better idea of the scale
of bots operators that will be affected when this lands - currently in
one months time.
Will the deploy date be moved back if the impact doesnt diminish by
bots being fixed?
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l