Last modified: 2014-08-05 07:08:50 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T12153, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 10153 - Strange off-by-one error in Special:Unusedimages at offset 43500 with 500 limit
Strange off-by-one error in Special:Unusedimages at offset 43500 with 500 limit
Status: NEW
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
1.11.x
All All
: Lowest minor (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t...
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-06-05 21:42 UTC by Autocracy
Modified: 2014-08-05 07:08 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Autocracy 2007-06-05 21:42:50 UTC
Problematic for a quick script that intends to check how many images are unused. 499 images are listed on this page, and others have viewed the URL to the same results. All prior pages are 500, and several after have 500.
Comment 1 Autocracy 2007-06-05 21:43:37 UTC
I put the url in the url field above, but just to make it clear...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUnusedimages&action=view&limit=500&offset=43500
Comment 2 Autocracy 2007-06-05 21:58:51 UTC
Tested the deletion of an image in that range... page showed 499 images again after an image in the displayed range was deleted. Deleted image was not displayed.
Comment 3 Andre Klapper 2014-04-22 07:41:35 UTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UnusedFiles&action=view&limit=500&offset=43500 shows no results for me (same for cs and de). 
Do I need special rights for this? :-/
Comment 4 C. Scott Ananian 2014-05-29 20:44:49 UTC
I think the algorithm should always be to add the number of images fetched to the offset and retry the API query until it returns 0 images, not to rely on the limit being matched exactly.  As comment 2 is hinting, concurrent deletes can cause underfull replies.

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


Navigation
Links