Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot IV 73

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

Denied.

DannyS712 bot IV 73

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:44, Friday, April 2, 2021 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: Not written yet

Function overview: Work around phab:T275322 by automatically reviewing in flaggedrevs pending edits by users that are now confirmed/autoconfirmed AND that edit is the one immediately following a stable revision

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): phab:T275322

Edit period(s): Until the bug is resolved

Estimated number of pages affected: Logs

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: There is a current bug thats been open for a while about flagged revs no longer consistently autoreviewing edits. The bot would try to fix that until the bug is resolved. Specific places where the bot behavior would diverge from the (intended) extension behavior:

the bot would "autoreview" edits made by users that would qualify for autoreview if the prior edit, *at the time of the bot run*, is already reviewed, while the extension only autoreviews if the prior edit *at the time of the edit* is already reviewed
the bot would "autoreview" edits made by users that are believed to qualify for autoreview *at the time of the bot run*, the extension only autoreviews if *at the time of the edit* the user qualified for autoreview

The first difference isn't as big of an issue, the second one would present a minor work around if a user makes edits right before becoming autoconfirmed, and no human gets a chance to see them. But, I believe these is outweighed by the benefits of reducing the workload on pending changes reviewers by autoreviewing edits that generally should have been autoreviewed.

Code details, code is based on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot IV 65 / https://github.com/DannyS712/bot/blob/master/pcr-accepter.js:

Api query for old reviewed pages returns the page title, revid (latest), stable_revid (and a bunch of other stuff we don't care about right now)
Using that page title and info, query revision api for edits from the stable_revid to rev_id (direction: newer). For every revision after the one that is the stable rev id, if the user is autoconfirmed or confirmed (api query list=users usprop=implicitgroups|groups) as of the time of running, mark as reviewed and then check the next edit to the page. If an edit does not qualify for autoreview, subsequent edits won't either, so just stop there

Discussion

Isn't this a duplicate of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FireflyBot II? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Well, I hadn't seen that task request, and it wasn't showing up in the logs when I filed this request since it hadn't started the trial yet. I don't see any problems arising from having two bots doing this though DannyS712 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold., the bot has gone to trial and while there is not necessarily an issue with two bots doing the same thing, if one works there's not much point in a second. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. So we discussed this on IRC a bit. In effect, whilst redundancy (especially in the case of bots) is not a bad thing, this bug probably won't last too long and so it's probably not worth spending your time writing another bot and our time reviewing it, especially as Firefly is active and their bot is currently functioning doing this task. If that changes (ie their bot becomes slow, stops functioning, or operator disappears) it would be great to file this again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.