Last modified: 2009-10-13 20:47:05 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 T19060, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 17060 - Page history lines are rendered differently to admins when contents have been concealed by RevisionDelete
Page history lines are rendered differently to admins when contents have been...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Page deletion (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal minor (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Aaron Schulz
:
Depends on:
Blocks: revdel
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-01-18 00:46 UTC by Happy-melon
Modified: 2009-10-13 20:47 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

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


Attachments
Screenshot of history of [[test:Foo]] (91.38 KB, image/png)
2009-02-09 15:56 UTC, Happy-melon
Details
screenshot with trunk code (73.44 KB, image/png)
2009-05-18 22:36 UTC, Happy-melon
Details

Description Happy-melon 2009-01-18 00:46:02 UTC
When an admin views the edit history of an article, the concealed revision componenents are still shown visibly, although struck out to highlight the concealment.  When an admin views a log extract, the concealed components display in the same manner as they do for non-admins, grey and struck out, and the admin must click through to Special:RevisionDelete in order to see the contents of the log entry.  This behavior should be consistent between the two types of entries.  Personally I think the latter behavior is preferable: in the same fashion as Special:DeletedContributions, the content is still *accessible* to admins, but it is more clearly set apart from the 'normal' content. Thoughts?
Comment 1 Alex Z. 2009-01-20 00:28:38 UTC
Seems to do this already on SVN HEAD. When viewing page history as a sysop/oversight I see (username removed), etc. same as log entries.

Going through the places this is used - whether the deleted content is visible or not:

*Special:Log - not visible
*Log excerpts - not visible
*Page history - not visible
*Diffs - not visible
*Viewing old revisions - visible
*Special:Undelete - visible
*Viewing deleted revisions - visible
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2009-02-09 07:58:56 UTC
Issue does not appear to exists, perhaps 'Viewing old revisions' was what was meant?
Comment 3 Happy-melon 2009-02-09 15:56:20 UTC
Created attachment 5794 [details]
Screenshot of history of [[test:Foo]]

This is what I mean, sorry if I explained it badly.  Admin account is on top (obviously, hence the show/hide links).
Comment 4 Aaron Schulz 2009-02-09 22:27:39 UTC
Changed in r47059
Comment 5 Happy-melon 2009-05-18 21:51:15 UTC
This has regressed, it's now present in trunk again.
Comment 6 Happy-melon 2009-05-18 22:05:41 UTC
caused by r48902; the changes to PageHistory::revLink() should be reverted. 
Comment 7 Aaron Schulz 2009-05-18 22:16:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> caused by r48902; the changes to PageHistory::revLink() should be reverted. 
> 

Works for me. A related bug for empty comments was fixed in r50757 though.
Comment 8 Happy-melon 2009-05-18 22:36:57 UTC
Created attachment 6134 [details]
screenshot with trunk code

This is with r50757 of PageHistory.php.  How much more recent do you want? :D
Comment 9 Aaron Schulz 2009-05-18 22:40:05 UTC
That is not an edit summary
Comment 10 Mike.lifeguard 2009-05-18 23:57:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=6134) [details]
> screenshot with trunk code
> 
> This is with r50757 of PageHistory.php.  How much more recent do you want? :D
> 

Isn't it supposed to show people as much as they can see? So, if something is hidden (but not from sysops too) then a sysop will see it as crossed out so they know there is a restriction applied to it, but they can see it?

If that's correct, then I'd like to point to my comment at <somewhere I can't find> in which I asked that things hidden from sysops should be doubly-stricken-out, and things that sysops (only) can see should be single-stricken-out. This will make it clearer for oversighters that even though they can see something, sysops can't (since that stuff will be visually different from anything hidden but which /can/ be seen by sysops which would have a normal single strikeout)
Comment 11 Mike.lifeguard 2009-05-19 00:36:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)
Apparently double-strikeout doesn't exist in html et al. However a similar method of distinguishing the two levels of hidden-ness would be nice - maybe a div with an unobtrusive background colour?
Comment 12 Happy-melon 2009-05-19 07:47:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> That is not an edit summary
> 

True, but it is the same issue as was originally reported (compare recent screenshot with the one from three months ago), hence it's the same bug, hence regression. 

(In reply to comment #10)
> Isn't it supposed to show people as much as they can see? So, if something is
> hidden (but not from sysops too) then a sysop will see it as crossed out so
> they know there is a restriction applied to it, but they can see it?
> 

No, the other components (user and comment) both explicitly don't render for *anyone* when they've been hidden (cf second-from-bottom entry in that screenshot).  I approve of the sentiment that RevDeleted information should not be casually-accessible, it should require an active "yes I want to look at concealed information" from the admin/oversight.  

> If that's correct, then I'd like to point to my comment at <somewhere I can't
> find> in which I asked that things hidden from sysops should be
> doubly-stricken-out, and things that sysops (only) can see should be
> single-stricken-out. This will make it clearer for oversighters that even
> though they can see something, sysops can't (since that stuff will be visually
> different from anything hidden but which /can/ be seen by sysops which would
> have a normal single strikeout)
> 

When the content has been hidden from admins too, the "show/hide" link is bolded for oversights, and not present for admins (again, cf screenshot).  I agree that's not the clearest distinction, but one is present.
Comment 13 Aaron Schulz 2009-05-19 19:09:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > That is not an edit summary
> > 
> 
> True, but it is the same issue as was originally reported (compare recent
> screenshot with the one from three months ago), hence it's the same bug, hence
> regression. 
> 
If the summary is wrong then it's hard to tell what is going on sometimes.
Comment 14 Aaron Schulz 2009-05-19 19:19:52 UTC
Changed in r50788

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


Navigation
Links