Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FACBot 7


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

FACBot 7
Operator:

Time filed: 01:23, Tuesday, May 25, 2021 (UTC)

Function overview: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/tool-milhistbot/browse/master/mono/PeerReviews.cs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:FACBot

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,000

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.

Discussion
– SD0001  (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the results of the run limited to 25 edits:

All checked look fine. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In 2, the bot converted the original template's date  to  . Could this be avoided? Maybe always put the date as the date of last edit rather than read from PR template?
 * Code added to detect this case and subsitute the date of the last edit. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In 3, there's still a  left on the page (there were 2 initially).
 * This proved to be quite interesting, but Bot will handle it correctly now. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In 4, the PR date added is 20 October 2015‎ but that was when the page was moved. PR is actually from 2013. Not sure if this is worth fixing.
 * In 6, it duplicated the already existing PR in the AH template.
 * Code added to detect this and not add a duplicate entry. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * – SD0001  (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Should I run off another batch? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * – SD0001  (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Second run:


 * @Hawkeye7 Sorry I missed looking at the oldids earlier. Turns out the bot has added the current revid instead of the oldid in every edit.

Also, in the 2nd batch:


 * In 2: duplication
 * An action2 entry without an action1 entry. I have worked around this by deleting and rebuilding the entries but this may cause some minor re-ordering.
 * In 9: it added oldid for GA; but it's not correct (GA nom was in 2014 but oldid is for a 2019 edit)
 * It also means that in cases where there is a GA or some other entry missing fields like oldid for whatever reason, these will be added.
 * In 11: One  was removed, the other remains
 * Similar problem. Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * – SD0001  (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Have fixed the problem with the revid (caused by fiddling with the dates to fix a problem with the first set). have re-run against each of the problematic edits (offline, without updating). Will run off another batch. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hawkeye7 Is there any update on this? – SD0001  (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please withdraw this. I made the required changes, but have not been able to work on it. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (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 Bots/Noticeboard.