[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikitech-l
Subject:    [Wikitech-l] Re: Changes in Parsoid redlink output (breaking backwards compatibility)
From:       Subramanya Sastry <ssastry () wikimedia ! org>
Date:       2022-11-30 18:58:01
Message-ID: d7b42095-ceb7-620c-6a62-5a52fab609cf () wikimedia ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks Kunal for the feedback. Isabelle is out today, so I'll chat with 
the team and figure out next steps.

We realized this only after the train branch was cut and DiscussionTools 
tests failed. Part of the reason we didn't hold off the deployment is 
that we figured that this is an edge case since most of Parsoid's 
clients are all still mostly internal at this point and they were fixed. 
But, I suppose you and anyone else who use the Parsoid piece of the 
mwbot-rs framework would be impacted by this change if the bots are 
processing wikilink output.

Ideally, we would have suppressed red links in this week's train and 
deployed it the following week. But, yes, we will bump the version 
number to 2.7.0 in the next deploy.

As for this week's train, we don't want to roll back all of Parsoid's 
changes on this train, so one option we are considering is to push a 
patch that suppresses red link output if it turns out this will break a 
lot of bots. We will make a decision before it rolls out to group 2 
tomorrow. But, if you end up fixing your bots in the mean time, please 
let us know. Sorry about the disruption!

We have also chatted about fixing our team process going forward to 
track Parsoid HTML changes a bit more closely early on *especially* 
since we are now starting to move to a point where there will be greater 
exposure to Parsoid's HTML to bots, gadgets, etc.

Subbu on behalf of the Content Transform Team.

On 11/30/22 12:01, Kunal Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/29/22 12:49, Isabelle Hurbain-Palatin wrote:
>> As part of the effort to align Parsoid's output with the output of 
>> the legacy parser [1], we're introducing a backwards incompatible 
>> change [2] in the next Parsoid version (0.17.0-a7, to be deployed 
>> along with 1.40.0-wmf.12).
>
> Given that this is this week's train that's already in progress, it's 
> really not enough time to update code that is expecting the old format.
>
> Can this be delayed a bit?
>
>> [5] This would technically have required a major bump in the 
>> specification version. Since we don't have a well-tested 
>> implementation for content negotiation and the RESTBase sunsetting 
>> work is in progress [6], bumping major versions wasn't an option.We 
>> overlooked bumping a minor version as a signal, because we assumed we 
>> had it covered in 2.6.0.
>
> Is there something blocking a bump to 2.7.0 now? I don't understand 
> why it's being retconned into 2.6.0.
>
> -- Kunal / Legoktm
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ 
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]