Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/FLOSSbot 3
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Approved--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FLOSSbot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Dachary (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s: verify source code repository and software quality assurance claims on FLOSS items every 30 days
Code: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/2250/
Function details:
FLOSS bot adds the protocol qualifier for source code repository claims and software quality assurance claims to FLOSS items.
A new function is added to both so that the added information is verified after 30 days (this is configurable) have passed. The point in time (P585) qualifier is added to the claims to keep track of the last time it was verified to be accurate. When a fact is verified, the point in time (P585) is set. Otherwise an error message is displayed and nothing is done. It is up to the editor to fix even the most trivial mistake. The aim is to help the editor focus on items where there is a problem and not on those that can trivially be verfied to be accurate.
While implementing this feature, I incorrectly used retrieved (P813) instead of point in time (P585) and it was only after running FLOSSbot on hundreds of items within less than 24h that this problem was reported to me. I removed the retrieved (P813) qualifiers and replaced them with point in time (P585) qualifiers. The traces of this mistake can be seen in the history of the bot activity, in the past few days.
There has been no functional bugs that I know of because integration testing is done against test.wikidata.org under the FLOSSbotCI user. The bot is run against wikidata.org only after integration tests pass and have reasonable code coverage.
--Dachary (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, your intention is to update the "point in time" statements every 30 days but (if nothing else has changed) change nothing else about the statements? That doesn't seem to me to be the usual meaning of "point in time" - more a "last checked time", but maybe it's suitable? Not sure about this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that "last checked time" would be more suitable if it existed. I chose "point in time" because it is close enough. But it does not capture the idea of "checking", just the idea of "it is valid at this point in time". Dachary (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ArthurPSmith, are you happy with the response?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- it seems a little odd, but I have no further objection. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that "last checked time" would be more suitable if it existed. I chose "point in time" because it is close enough. But it does not capture the idea of "checking", just the idea of "it is valid at this point in time". Dachary (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: has a good argument for using retrieved in the source/reference instead of point in time, as discussed on the bot talk page. If that seems more natural to you too, I'll change the bot accordingly. Please let me know what you think. Dachary (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I also prefer retrieved (P813) in the source section than point in time (P585) as qualifier. --Pasleim (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool :-) I'll wait for @Ymblanter: or @ArthurPSmith: and implement that if they don't have further concerns. Dachary (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]