https://github.com/miraheze/RottenLinks/pull/41

• T7942: [ManageWiki] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7943: [CreateWiki] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7944: [MatomoAnalytics] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7945: [GlobalNewFiles] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7946: [RemovePII] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7947: [DataDump] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7948: [RottenLinks] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7949: [IncidentReporting] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security
• T7950: [WikiDiscover] Create better CI for MediaWiki standards and security

In T7939#160072, @John wrote:

In T7939#160067, @RhinosF1 wrote:

In T7939#160062, @John wrote:

One task - one end objective is a standard purpose. Why do we have a task for 9 separate objectives?

It's one end objective that all Miraheze maintained extensions have mediawiki-standard CI

9 different software components = 9 different tasks surely? They just good task management and makes things easily trackable and measurable.

It's probably better to be tracking things separately and have subtasks for each extension

In T7939#160067, @RhinosF1 wrote:

In T7939#160062, @John wrote:

One task - one end objective is a standard purpose. Why do we have a task for 9 separate objectives?

It's one end objective that all Miraheze maintained extensions have mediawiki-standard CI

In T7939#160062, @John wrote:

One task - one end objective is a standard purpose. Why do we have a task for 9 separate objectives?

It's one end objective that all Miraheze maintained extensions have mediawiki-standard CI

One task - one end objective is a standard purpose. Why do we have a task for 9 separate objectives?

I've extended the above mentioned PR to now also include phan.

https://github.com/miraheze/ManageWiki/pull/297 does this for ManageWiki, implementing eslint, stylelint, and phpcs. It also will make GitHub Actions automatically commit PHPCS formatting fixes, when possible.

It has now been deployed. So yeah there was just a couple logic fixes to it that prevented the actual HTTP: <code> from appearing.

Indeed, much nicer!

Great! Once deployed I recommend updating the extension as well as it includes a couple of additional fixes to the actual special page as well.

In T7788#157141, @Kghbln wrote:

Great news: The script completed. Apparently the script works by latest revisions thus I got the 999 status code from linkedin at the end:

Added externallink (https://www.linkedin.com/in/wohlfart-ren%C3%A9-17501b151) used on 1 with code 999
Added externallink (https://www.linkedin.com/in/burkard-zenglein-1741bb79) used on 1 with code 999
Added externallink (https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-fink-288b4539) used on 1 with code 999
Added externallink (https://www.linkedin.com/in/%C3%A5sa-petersson-09338aa/) used on 1 with code 999
Added externallink (https://de.linkedin.com/in/wohlfart-ren%C3%A9-17501b151) used on 1 with code 999
Script took 12238 seconds.

Here are the overall stats:

Statistiken zu den Links
599
OK
25784
Multiple Choices
22
Moved Permanently
110
Found
51
See Other
2
Temporary Redirect
3
Bad Request
28
Unauthorized
13
Forbidden
159
Not Found
2214
Method Not Allowed
79
Gone
83
Locked
4
Too Many Requests
5
Internal Server Error
76
Not Implemented
2
Bad Gateway
7
Service Unavailable
42
3
6

Thus about 29k links were checked.

I believe your fix is ready to merge. :) Thanks a lot for your really swift response to the issue and for 1.35 compat! Much apprechiated not just me but also the non-profit project running the wiki!!

Great news: The script completed. Apparently the script works by latest revisions thus I got the 999 status code from linkedin at the end:

In T7788#157044, @Kghbln wrote:

So just to verify it is fixed on your end, did you fix this before the hopefully fixed script finish, if so I will do my own testing, if not please let me know when it finishes.

Well I removed it and due to the crash the script execution was interrupted, too. Anyhow I will add it on a test page and re-run the script. I will report back.

So just to verify it is fixed on your end, did you fix this before the hopefully fixed script finish, if so I will do my own testing, if not please let me know when it finishes.

In T7788#157034, @Kghbln wrote:

In T7788#157033, @Universal_Omega wrote:

Also I'm assuming the link in question is https://de.linkedin.com/ per the truncated line in the stack trace (#17) and I know that LinkedIn sets 999 status codes. You could likely find that in Special:LinkSearch if this fails for you. But I hope it would be resolved still.

Good pick. I would never have guessed linkedin. And this was the link causing the issue: https://de.linkedin.com/in/wohlfart-ren%C3%A9-17501b151 BEWARE: Clicking on this caused not just my brower to freeze but also crashed my desctop environment. To mitigate I had to reboot.

In T7788#157033, @Universal_Omega wrote:

Also I'm assuming the link in question is https://de.linkedin.com/ per the truncated line in the stack trace (#17) and I know that LinkedIn sets 999 status codes. You could likely find that in Special:LinkSearch if this fails for you. But I hope it would be resolved still.

Also I'm assuming the link in question is https://de.linkedin.com/ per the truncated line in the stack trace (#17) and I know that LinkedIn sets 999 status codes. You could likely find that in Special:LinkSearch if this fails for you. But I hope it would be resolved still.

In T7788#157031, @Kghbln wrote:

In T7788#157030, @Universal_Omega wrote:

In T7788#157028, @Kghbln wrote:

What about the improvements I suggested? Do you think this could be a nice medium to long term enhancement?

I'm not quite understanding that.

This is about the two suggestions I made in my report.

Identify the link, the response code and the page holding the link (some script output of this will be great)

That already is present, both in special page, you can see all of that info, as well as in console output it shows stuff, well shows page count there, actually listing pages in console would make the console output huge on large wikis so not sure that is a great idea.

For this the script has to complete. If not the admin is lost. This is why I suggested the improvements. Anyhow, if the script will not fail in the future under normal circumstances my suggestions are not necessary.

In T7788#157030, @Universal_Omega wrote:

In T7788#157028, @Kghbln wrote:

What about the improvements I suggested? Do you think this could be a nice medium to long term enhancement?

I'm not quite understanding that.

In T7788#157028, @Kghbln wrote:

What about the improvements I suggested? Do you think this could be a nice medium to long term enhancement?

What about the improvements I suggested? Do you think this could be a nice medium to long term enhancement?

In T7788#157019, @Universal_Omega wrote:

Status code 999 seems to be what is given here. That code is still a valid status code given on sites which do not permit scanning.

Status code 999 seems to be what is given here. That code is still a valid status code given on sites which do not permit scanning.