Talk:Phabricator/Archive 1

<div User:MarkAHershberger|MarkAHershberger]] recommended me to report it on "phabricator" but I don't understand how or where. To be sure to reach me please use my user page at Commons as above. Thankful for help. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Phabricator Labs Login OAuth
Hi,

In my Oauth managed connected applications list I see both "Phabricator Labs Login" and "phabricator-production".

I presume that I only really need "phabricator-production", and "Phabricator Labs Login" can be removed, but I'd love a confirmation.

It also makes me wonder: If an OAuth application becomes obsolete, can it remove itself from the grants list somehow?

(Tagging CSteipp.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An OAuth admin can revoke any apps that are no longer being used, but I think the labs login is still being used by the team deploying phabricator for testing. CSteipp (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Email problem
When signing up for Phabricator I accidentally listed the wrong email, and it wasn't an old email address of mine, it was one named similarly with one I actually have (I use like three gmails) Anyway, since it's still waiting for me to "verify" it, it won't let me do anything. What can I do? --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, is it possible for you to access https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/email/ and remove one of your addresses, or add another one? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I can't access any URL on Phab right now, the "Must Verify Email" comes up. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/external/ ? If all goes wrong someone with shell access could try to delete that account in Phabricator I guess. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the same "Must Verify Email" error upon clicking that. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've created T87608 for that because I myself don't have shell access (required for deleting a user). --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been resolved, and now I've created my account again with the right email address, thank you! -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Labs instance
Is the Labs instance still available, or does the page need updating in this regard? Nurg (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I get an error on https://phab-01.wmflabs.org/ today, but it was alive recently, I merged some dummy tasks in this sandbox. If it is now gone for good the main page (section "Migration completed") should be updated. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Works again for my 2014 test account not affected by T88346. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Data about Phabricator
Strictly speaking about Maniphest, is there data about the transition from Bugzilla? How many users were retained, how many were "lost", how many new users are there? Evidence that people are finding it easier to use and are indeed using it more? Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Latest numbers for created accounts and active users in Phabricator can be found in the monthly statistics emails. "Evidence" is pretty hard to define, but comparing the number of active users per month, see the graph on Community metrics. Bugzilla had 20022 registered accounts in the end. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
Where would I go to request the creation of a new syntax for displaying images? I was wondering if a parameter could be created that would display an image flipped vertically or horizontally, with out having to upload a separate file.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You can file a task against the Phabricator project (like this); it then gets discussed whether this is a feature wanted for the Wikimedia Phabricator, and if so, Andre or Quim will file tasks with the upstream developers or someone might develop a local hack. --Tim&#160;Landscheidt 16:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If this refers to a feature for displaying images in Phabricator itself, Tim's link is correct. If this refers to a feature for displaying images in MediaWiki, please see How to report a bug. In any case, it would require a convincing use case how and why such a feature would be useful. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is in reference for displaying images across Wikipedia, Commons, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then your request is about MediaWiki, the software behind those sites. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So I should propose this new function at How to report a bug?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How to report a bug explains the steps how to propose this new function in Phabricator. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can flip an image vertically by placing it inside
 * and horizontally by placing it inside
 * -- FriedhelmW (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- FriedhelmW (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- FriedhelmW (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Massive google+ spamming
JFTR, if it is not on commons for some reason it is by definition spam. Of course it can be also spam if it's on commons, but the deletion procedure would be straight forward in this case. Please do not spam for Google wannabe-services in any form, no matter if it is YouTube-spam, Maps-spam, Google+-spam, or spam for 1001 former now dead services killed by Google (Usenet archive, reader, buzz, maps API v2, whatever.) –Be..anyone (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the relation of your comment to Wikimedia Phabricator? Context welcome. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * G+ isn't . Somehow a link to the good /versus Bugzilla subpage vanished leaving only the wrt bandwidth huge G+ hangout. I've inserted the /versus Bugzilla blurb again, it could be removed next year when really nobody recalls what bugzilla was. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is this hangout that are you abbreviating about? --Tim&#160;Landscheidt 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you refer to the "The Very Basics of Phabricator" link (I can only guess and I still don't know what that "massive spamming" refers to), I replaced the Hangout link by a Youtube link in the article now and anybody is welcome to convert that Youtube video and put it on Commons. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CC BY-SA is better, even if YouTube manages to link it to their own CC BY page which links CC BY 3.0. Unfortunately 300 MB MP4 + 38 MB M4A download + convert + upload about the same size to commons would eat too much of my 5 GB per month plan. Commons always wants the best, no matter how big it is, up to 976 MB. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No idea how to report a bug
I'm just a simple bloke. Having clicked a bunch of incomprehensible stuff and read screeds of text and seen several screens that made me want to scream I have no idea how to report a bug. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is how to report a bug not clear enough? --121.219.253.36 12:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks better than anything I've seen so far, although still scary. Shame it's not linked in Phabricator. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out this problem! I hope this edit made it clearer. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EzPlan, EU "Active" and other extensions for mediawiki useful to integrate?
Extension:EzPlan and the PM formats supported by the EU "Active" project are of later origin than the deprecated CC:Teamspace  and Extension:Semantic_Project_Management mentioned in the Project_management_tools page. That page should be updated.

More importantly, has anyone looked at situations when either of these currently-maintained extensions should be used, or other extensions like Semantic Bundle provides, when people want to co-operate in a mediawiki to help a development process along? For instance, to detail a spec or to describe a use case, or other things that are better done in mediawiki than in Phabricator?

The project of implementing Phabricator should include clearly identifying what mediawiki should be used for, what extensions are helpful to use it for that purpose, and how it should be integrated into Phabricator. A few incredibly useful extensions would likely result from just studying this.

The combined knowledge of the user community is all tied up in mediawiki skills and format, but only a tiny number of those will ever use Phabricator, so the workload is cut drastically if we can maximize the usefulness of mediawiki itself in the Wikimedia development process, in the long term.

Some kind of roadmap for integration of mediawiki and Phabricator would be ideal. But for now, just a review of what extensions will help users to cut the workload of the Phabricator users (i.e. developers), by feeding in data in a form that Phabricator itself can make immediate use of...


 * Hi, to discuss content of Project management tools it's probably more effective to directly post on the related Discussion/talk page (the content of that page is nowadays most for historical reasons). For the reasons why Phabricator was chosen over other options (such as MediaWiki itself), see the links in the "Past steps" section on Phabricator. Regarding "integration of MediaWiki and Phabricator", specific problems that you see and would like to solve would be interesting, as "integration" can mean a lot of things. :) --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one...
...increasingly frustrated by the lack of a "thanks" system in Phab? Too many times I want to thank people for a comment or an action, and awarding tokens is just too generic (and confusing FWIW). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do, but probably not as often as you since I am not very active on Phabricator — Ltrlg (talk), 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is funny, -- I was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday, because I wanted to thank you. :) -Pete F (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion or deletion in Phabricator?
All, I am an occasional user of Phabricator, and have found it a very useful tool. Sometimes the bugs I enter are addressed; other times they are not. When they are not, sometimes I get information about why not, and other times I don't. As a wiki user, I am used to working in an environment like this; once in a while I am frustrated when I enter a bug and hear nothing back, but it's not really a big deal -- if anything, that's useful information, because it means if I want to get action taken, there is still work to be done in finding the right people and/or describing the issue better.

The one thing that is always frustrating to me is when my bugs are closed with a reason like "that project isn't managed on Phabricator." That doesn't help me, if it's unaccompanied by a pretty specific suggestion about how to contact the people who can help -- and it sets me back a little, because now even if I do find those people, Phabricator has been identified as an inappropriate resource for tracking it and moving it forward. It also suggests that it's incumbent on me, an end-user, to determine what project is appropriate before I even decide whether or not Phabricator is the right venue. Perhaps "Fundraising Sprint Beastie Boys" is the right project for my bug? I have no idea. It looks to me like there are, maybe, hundreds of active projects, and I often haven't the slightest idea what a project might be named.

I recently found that has written on this topic, which is great -- for the first time, I can start to get a handle on the thinking around this. Their essay on the topic argues the opposite, but is clearly presented: User:Krenair/Phabricator projects. We discussed it a bit on their user talk page. (Have also discussed a bit with .) But ultimately, I'm not sure of the status of that essay -- does it reflect an actual policy? Or is there widespread disagreement about how liberally Phabricator should be used? I would like to hear more about this -- and about what to do when I find a software-related problem in the Wikimedia world, but don't know what project it might or might not be connected to, or whether or not that project is managed on Phabricator (or might be in the future). -Pete F (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am glad this is being discussed.


 * "I am frustrated when I enter a bug and hear nothing back, but it's not really a big deal -- if anything, that's useful information, because it means if I want to get action taken, there is still work to be done in" - 'hear nothing back' as in no one even touches your task, or no one comments/fixes it? Bugs in some projects get at least a basic read by other people (and often some priority set or categorised into a column). Also, I don't think this is always acceptable to most users. We should avoid leaving users in a situation where no one will even read their task - while we have stuff like tasks with no projects mostly covered, what happens if you make a task that's only got a tag project listed (like tracking or something)? It's highly possible no one will find it for a long time (some of these could be very high priority, others less so).


 * Tasks being closed because "that project isn't managed on Phabricator." is something that I suspect should be happening more than it currently does. Yes, you should theoretically be expected to figure out which projects to add (at the moment, if you add none, it's likely that someone will add projects if they are in Phabricator, or close it if not), and right now I think that can be a challenge for new users. Since I know that you're here from a gadgets task, I should add that with these, the reporter should be considered be lucky to get much more contact info than "the administrators of your wiki". Wikis do not all have a standardised place for that, it should not be the closer's task to figure out if such a place actually exists or not (they might not have access to the wiki, they might not be able to speak the language, etc.), you may end up contacting an admin directly (e.g. via user talk or email). The gadgets thing specifically is interesting actually - why do some people appear treat it so differently from modules/templates?


 * My essay is by no means a policy (I don't think I'm a senior enough MW developer to walk around declaring such things policy just like that, I've only been around for like 4 years, and even if I was I probably wouldn't just do it), but it shows some of the ideas that I consider and apply when closing tasks (task closing is very rarely something determined by policy anyway). A developer closing your task does not necessarily mean it's completely hopeless - e.g. they can be reopened by users pointing out the problem is actually a miscommunication/misunderstanding, other developers disagreeing fundamentally, etc (and as you saw, even if it is the wrong forum, some people may still actually be able to help you, the problem is that there's no guarantee and we should try to set reasonable expectations to reporters around this). It's not clear to me at the moment how many people agree with the essay, I haven't got a lot of feedback (maybe if I linked to it every time the subject came up, it would get more attention?)


 * I kind of wonder if some much more comprehensive guidelines for task creation based on subject (e.g. say "for editor-controlled article content (e.g. wiki articles themselves, individual wiki gadgets, etc.), phabricator is the wrong place." and "before reporting a bug with mobile software, remember to specify whether it's for an app (specify android or ios) or the mobile web"), with some explanation that only tasks intended for projects which are actually tracking issues in Phabricator should go to Phabricator, would be a good idea. I wouldn't go too far with it - i.e. we probably shouldn't (to use an example from my work with the foundation) expect non-VE-developers to identify which parts of VE are generic and which are MediaWiki-specific, and know to add the VisualEditor-MediaWiki project. But still we run the risk of making it look too complicated. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 04:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was resisting this temptation, but it turns out to be very relevant here: w:en:WP:DEVBEANS from June 2006 (almost a decade ago), especially the last section or two. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 04:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When closing a task as "not being tracked in Wikimedia Phabricator" people should point out where the person who already graciously spent their spare time to report the problem should bring it up instead. Regarding the bigger topic what to (not) track in Wikimedia Phabricator and why, discussion in T85433 is related. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)