TfM rename#139
Conversation
| }, | ||
| regex: { | ||
| nomTemplate: /(<noinclude>[\n\s]*)?{{(?:Template for discussion|Tfm)\/dated[^{}]*(?:{{[^}}]*}}[^}}]*)*?}}([\n\s]*<\/noinclude>)?(\n)?/gi, | ||
| nomTemplate: /(<noinclude>[\n\s]*)?{{(?:Template for discussion|Template for merging)\/dated[^{}]*(?:{{[^}}]*}}[^}}]*)*?}}([\n\s]*<\/noinclude>)?(\n)?/gi, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we leave Tfm in the list for backwards compatibility?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It has been broken for over a month already and we don't have any discussions using tfm anymore as far as I can tell. No opposition to keeping it around but I don't think it would ever be invoked.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Normally I'm all for making sure old things/ways don't break, but other than a single case where it looks like someone copied the template to the sandbox while there was an old tfm tag on it, I can't see an instance where tfm/dated would show up; it is in none of the documentation and is always placed by a subst'd {{tfm}} (see e.g. TFDHOWO). This is one of the very few places where I don't think backwards-compatibility will be needed.
|
Pro tip: if you put one of the following in your post when you first post it... Fix #136 ... and probably some other keywords I'm too lazy to look up, GitHub will automatically link the PR to the ticket, then when the PR is merged it'll close the ticket. Saying "Resolves issue #136" isn't the correct keyword format so I went ahead and did some manual linking. |
|
@Trialpearswiki Thanks for all these PRs. One reason I go to the quite considerable effort of turning every talk page thread into a GitHub ticket is so that when some super volunteer patch writer like you comes along, everything is tied up with a bow and ready for work :) I've been busy with some other stuff and my wiki time has gone down a lot the past month or two. My plan is to catch up on reviewing these PRs at Wikimania (late July), or maybe before if I find some time. One thing you can do to help me / expedite the process is, in cases where the patch is simple and/or there's wikicode algorithm changes, include some diffs to the testing you did on testwiki. Usually I load every patch and do a before and after manual test on testwiki. But in some cases, I can feel confident enough to merge just looking at the diffs, and when this happens, it can expedite the patch. Thanks for all this patch writing. People like you rescue repos like this and I appreciate it :) |
|
Also, if you're looking for high impact patches to write, filtering by the "frequently requested" tag can be helpful: https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/xfdcloser/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Afrequently-requested |
|
Sounds great, will make sure to include diffs when appropriate then! |
|
Sorry, but this has really been gumming up TFD lately, there are a ton of merge templates that aren't getting taken out of the TFM tracking category because the script isn't removing the nominations. It's a straight-forward one-line change and there's nothing that will break if it's implemented. |
|
Tested, works. Thanks! |
3 participants
Resolves issue #136 and the bug reported at [[Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Is the new AFD merge thing messing up TFD?]]