Last modified: 2008-01-15 15:40:08 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 12585 - rollback parameters
rollback parameters
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
History/Diffs (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-01-11 18:15 UTC by Carl Fürstenberg
Modified: 2008-01-15 15:40 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Carl Fürstenberg 2008-01-11 18:15:48 UTC
I would propose enable following parameters to the default rollback summary:

$3: number of revisions reverted
$4: revid reverted to
$5: timestamp for revid reverted to
$6: revid reverted from
$7: timestamp for revid reverted from
Comment 1 Roan Kattouw 2008-01-13 20:44:48 UTC
Can't you just get all this information by looking at the page history? WONTFIX?
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2008-01-13 20:46:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can't you just get all this information by looking at the page history?
> WONTFIX?
> 

But that would require slower client side checks.
Comment 3 Roan Kattouw 2008-01-13 20:48:51 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> But that would require slower client side checks.
Expanding these variables in *every* rollback summary would slow down human-made rollbacks, which I suspect are more numerous than bot-made ones.

Comment 4 Aaron Schulz 2008-01-13 20:51:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > But that would require slower client side checks.
> Expanding these variables in *every* rollback summary would slow down
> human-made rollbacks, which I suspect are more numerous than bot-made ones.
> 

Not really, as long as the revision count one is not included. The useful ones seems to be:
$1: reverted user
$2: user reverted to
$3: revid reverted to
$4: timestamp for revid reverted to
Comment 5 Roan Kattouw 2008-01-13 20:53:13 UTC
Actually I think only $6 and $7 require fetching additional DB rows.
Comment 6 Aaron Schulz 2008-01-13 20:55:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Actually I think only $6 and $7 require fetching additional DB rows.
> 
The "number of revisions reverted" would need one.
Comment 7 Roan Kattouw 2008-01-13 20:57:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> The "number of revisions reverted" would need one.
Ouch, yeah, that one would be particularly expensive. 

Comment 8 Carl Fürstenberg 2008-01-13 21:01:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > The "number of revisions reverted" would need one.
> Ouch, yeah, that one would be particularly expensive. 
> 

wouldn't the rollback routine allready have such a number?
Comment 9 Roan Kattouw 2008-01-13 21:03:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> wouldn't the rollback routine allready have such a number?

No. All it cares about is the revision being reverted to: it fetches the text from that revision, then creates a new revision identical to it. Whatever may or may not have happened in between doesn't matter. 

Comment 10 Carl Fürstenberg 2008-01-13 21:04:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > wouldn't the rollback routine allready have such a number?
> 
> No. All it cares about is the revision being reverted to: it fetches the text
> from that revision, then creates a new revision identical to it. Whatever may
> or may not have happened in between doesn't matter. 
> 

aha, ok.

PS: get on IRC!
Comment 11 Roan Kattouw 2008-01-15 15:40:08 UTC
Added in r29794:

$3: revid of the revision reverted to
$4: timestamp of the revision reverted to
$5: revid of the revision reverted from
$6: timestamp of the revision reverted from

Already present:
$1: User whose edits are reverted to
$2: Victim

My custom rollback message right now (to give you guys an idea) is:

Reverted revision $5 ($6) and earlier revisions by $2, reverted to revision $3 ($4) by $1

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links