Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Muninnbot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

Muninnbot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Tigraan (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:19, Sunday, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python 3

Source code available: [1]

Function overview: Notifies posters when a Teahouse thread gets archived.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Tigraan-testbot and the links from there

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ~20/day

Namespace(s): User talk pages

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (PWB)

Function details: See previous BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Tigraan-testbot). That is a bit of a procedural nomination, since that "new" bot has exactly the same functionality. We intended to add that functionality to User:HostBot (maintained by Jtmorgan) but we have not done so, and I also have plans/dreams to extend the functionality on other pages than the Teahouse (and it would not make much sense to perform the duties from a Teahouse-dedicated bot).

The previous test run was fine but I have done a significant refactoring of the code (tested, of course, but you never know what can happen). Furthermore, it would be my first bot on Toolforge, and I am clearly not above a screwup when submitting the jobs on the grid and running the script from a different environment. So I would request a trial run similar to last time, even if the functionality has not changed.

Discussion

• Is User:Tigraan-testbot still going to making edits and need a bot flag? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  No, please remove it. I intended to use the "testbot" account for trial runs etc. but a quick glance at the Toolforge setup makes me think it is more trouble than it's worth. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

   Done, @Tigraan: if you want a bot flag on testwiki, just drop me a note at testwiki:User_talk:Xaosflux and I'll flag it over there for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please put a task description on User:Muninnbot and you probably should redirect its talk page to you. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  Kind-of done for the former (the short task description is in, but I will absolutely need to write a proper documentation, what I wrote in the github repo is out of date...), done for the latter. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits or 30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. please post back results here after trialing. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} how was the trial? Please post a summary and diffs. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the trial never occurred, do you intend to move forward on this still? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I was out of home for a few weeks, but should be able to trial this weekend. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will not have the trial results this weekend, due to a pesky little issue with PWB, but I should be able to do that this week (the big technical hurdle was to install PWB on Toolforge, but I got this). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, added more days to the trial approval. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Trial complete. - 34 edits to user talk pages outside its own, if we exclude an embarassing mistake where I created a random page (which hopefully was only seen by the deleting administrator). Not quite 50, but I want to avoid to go overboard as last time. I reviewed ~20 of them by hand so far and they all look good (Special:Diff/837740252 looked sketchy at first since the thread is signed by someone else, but I believe it's SineBot's fault). Typical diff: the correct notification is posted and a few cats are reorganised on the page (that's PWB scripts add_text).

I do not explain why the April 22 edits are all marked minor, while the April 21 edits are not, since I did not touch the code in between the two runs. If that is a problem I can try to see PWB's options. (I have kicked it off the cron for now.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change L993-L997

    post_text = '=={sn}==\n{tta}'.format(sn=sn, tta=text)

    # Caution: will not ask for confirmation!
    add_text.add_text(page, post_text, summary=es,
                      always=True, up=False, create=True)

to page.save(text=text, summary=sn, section='new', minor=False, botflag=False). (example edit) This will avoid making other changes to the user's talk page; however, you will lose the ability for the edit summary to be different from the section name. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I incorporated JJMC89's suggestion above in the code (having no control over the edit summary is not an issue; of course, I set botflag to True, though.). After that plus a bit of unimportant code tweaking, a dry run showed that today's batch is 14 notifs, so I could run it without going over trial limit (34+14<50). Results here. Manual inspection revealed no discrepancies. The worse I could see is that a human editor would probably have refrained notifying for that archival (not really a question, and veteran editor), but there was no simple way to avoid that (well, except avoiding notifications for users with more than X edits or the like, but consensus was somewhat against such a scheme when we designed the bot a year or so ago). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Another good suggestion at User_talk:Tigraan#No_time_tag_on_Muninnbot_notifications by David Biddulph, implemented by editing the template rather than the bot code (hence I do not believe any testing is necessary). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• {{BAG assistance needed}} Any chance for approval on this one? I think it is good to go now. If the slightly messy trial was a problem, kick it to extended trial, or deny altogether, but that has been hanging for a while. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Tigraan: (please ping me when replying so we can get this to end of review, sorry for delays its been very busy). One "minor" issue I see with your last run is that you used the "minor" flag, during trial this was fine but if this bot is flagged and you use minor, you will trigger "nominornewtalk" and the users won't get notified that you left them a message. I suggest you don't use the minor flag when editing these user talk pages. Thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Sorry if the result presentation was not clear, but the last run (out of three) is here and does not use the minor flag, unless I am missing something. The previous run did though, that was not intentional. I could not find how to avoid it when using scripts.add_text, but I used JJMC89's suggestion (just below "trial complete", above) of page.save(...section='new'...) (see commit) to fix it before the last run. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 Approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.