Editing Encyclopedia:Editing bug reports (section)

=== Editing on not current version ===

2002/04/12 - while editing [[second-order desire]], I normally started form the recent changes page that linked a version of 03:43, but when I had the page edited, I casually went to that page's history and I realised that there was another version (03:51), later than the one I had modified, that was not the one linked in recent changes and which text was not in the editbox. Probably, the database had a delay (half an hour?) in recording the latest version (03:51), even if my version was immediately recorded at 04:20. --[[user:Gianfranco|Gianfranco]] 
:Most likely, the 3:51 change occurred after you loaded RecentChanges and before you loaded the edit page -- your 4:20 change includes everything from the 3:51 change, so it was definitely the 3:51 version that you modified, not the 3:43 version. When exactly did you load the RecentChanges page? [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Friday, April 12, 2002
::The main fact is that I certainly opened the RecentChanges page and the edit page after 03:51, because I modified the article in no more than 10 minutes, let's say a quarter of an hour for all the process - certainly it wasn't half an hour. Ordinarily, the 03:51 edit should have already been recorded when I opened (really, refreshed) the RecentChanges page.
::In the 03:51 version, you can see a link to [[stereotype]] (first paragraph after the numbered list) that I had never seen until I realised of this version and opened it: for sure it wasn't in the editbox' text, I would have edited that text too. So, actually, I edited the 03:43 version at least a quarter of an hour after the other user had edited the 03:51 version.
::Moreover, if you look at the [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Second-order_desire&diff=yes diff for last version] (mine), there is no evidence of that link, that disappears after the previous diff page (03:51 from 03:43).
::I can only add that that both 03:43 and 03:51 versions are from the same author; could this fact having interfered? --[[user:Gianfranco|Gianfranco]] 

:::There is no possible way that the changes between the 3:43 and 3:51 versions would have been preserved in the 4:20 version (which they were) unless the 4:20 version was edited from the 3:51 version. Unless, that is, you yourself typed those paragraphs exactly as did the previous author, ''and'' somehow avoided getting an edit conflict screen. I ''guarantee'' you the 3:51 version was in the editbox when you edited it; there is no other reasonable explanation for your saved version including text that did not exist prior to the 3:51 version. The link you cite (to [[stereotypes]]) is indeed not in the 3:43 version, but *is* in the 3:51 version and *is* in the 4:20 version which you saved. Therefore it *was* in the editbox when you edited it. This cannot be denied, though you may not have ''noticed'' or ''read'' the paragraph in question. You edited the 3:51 version, ''not'' the 3:43 version.


:::That out of the way, the remaining question is that of the 3:43 edit being listed when you loaded RecentChanges. If, indeed, you did refresh RecentChanges after the 3:51 edit but saw only the 3:43 edit listed, that would be an unusual and unexpected occurence; my first thought was that, perhaps you simply had 'hide minor edits' enabled in your preferences, however this ''ought'' not to affect this case, as neither edit was marked as a minor edit. (If you ''do'' have that option enabled, let me know and I'll double-check the code...) So we have three possibilities:
####Time flies when you're having fun (you spent more time editing that article than you think, and you simply hit RecentChanges before 3:51 and "edit" after 3:51)
####The 3:51 edit was actually saved after 3:51 and after you hit RecentChanges (but before you hit "edit"), and its timestamp is somehow incorrect
####There is a malfunction in 'hide minor edits' that caused it to ignore a non-minor edit (if you have 'hide minor edits' enabled)
:::At least, that's all I can think of for now. [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Tuesday, April 16, 2002

:::Well, it seems quite a strange fact that now the three versions and the page's history work well: when I wrote the previous reply, the previous versions and the final article (04:20) were exactly as I described, while now this link ([[stereotypes]]) is in the article. I read minor edits too, they are not hidden, so this shouldn't be the reason. And I would be quite sure about editing time, I remember I made it very quickly (perhaps less than 10 minutes), while usually it takes me more - in the average - due to language; also, I had no "Edit conflict" notice. I can on my side ''guarantee'' that I only read the 03:43 v. while editing, and I confirm you the situation was as described. :-)
:::Just to see if I could help somehow, I asked my technician too (he knew the program in a prior version), and he suggests me also, as a possibility, some notes that I transmit in case they could help:
####The MySql database could have temporarily cached (on server) the 03:43 version and output this, perhaps due to a queue or a timeout, then my input was "virtually" on the 03:51 v. even if I was served and shown the 03:43 content; but input should have been evaluated as "differential", in the sense that the database should be collecting the differences from previous version, rather than replacing the whole content (if this is how it works). In this case, as the paragraph that includes the link was not modified, no input was given about it and the served page included the cached text with the modified paragraphs only (not the paragraph with the link because not in cache and not modified). The "diff" function might have reflected this if it is operated (and content is created) on the fly - in the sense that there is no permanent record or previous cache of differences among versions in the directory - and in fact now it works correctly, as well.
####For some reason, the 03:43 version could have been sorted by subject, as the first in alphabetical order, instead of by date order, if alphabetical is the default setting; the record should have then been "without a sorting instruction" for a while. This however would not explain why the final article now includes the link and it didn't before, unless the paragraphs are not singularly checked for the "diff" function, as above, and still needs a temporary caching to have happened (maybe due to partial or corrupted packets of data sent by other user - or a partial timeout in sending?).
:::Hoping we can discover what happened, let me thank you for your attention :-)  --[[user:Gianfranco|Gianfranco]] - Wednesday, April 17, 2002

::::(1) isn't possible, because the database doesn't merge edits, it replaces the whole text. The 3:51 text '''was''' in your edit box, there is no other possibility about that whatsoever. That doesn't mean it was there when you read the page _before_ clicking the edit link, though. (2) isn't possible, because only the most recent edit is in the ''cur'' table which is queried by the RecentChanges list; an older edit could only show up in the list if the ''cur'' table hadn't been updated yet when the query was made (or if 'hide minor edits' is on, in which case it also queries the ''old'' table which contains previous revisions). [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Wednesday, April 17, 2002

::::The 03:51 text '''was not''' in my edit box, and the famous link was not in the previous versions. For some time this 03:51 version wasn't visible. --[[user:Gianfranco|Gianfranco]] - Saturday, April 20, 2002

:::::Are you ''sure?'' I believe you just didn't notice the added sentence when you were editing. Whether 3:51 was visible in various other places or not, it '''must''' have been in your edit box, because '''every change''' from 3:43 to 3:51 is also in the 4:20 text that you submitted. [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Friday, April 19, 2002

-----

'''Editing new pages'''

When I follow a link to a new page, instead of being greeted with the edit box, I get a page that appears to already exist, with the text "Describe the new page here.".
I know what to do -- click on "Edit this page" -- but this is doubtless quite confusing to newbies.
I think that we should either go back to the old system or make the default text explain the new system instead of the old one.
-- [[user:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 2002/05/15

:Correction: This only works incorrectly when following a link to a nonexistent talk page. So it's a namespace bug. -- [[user:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]], Thursday, May 23, 2002

----

'''Redirects creating Protected Pages'''

I've been transfering user information to user pages using a redirect, but now it creates a protected page and won't let me add any information to it. I'm not sure whether it's the redirect command at fault, or the user: command or the combination, but it's paralysed the transfer of user info out of the mainspace. ~ [[user:Karen Johnson|KJ]] 17th May 2002

:I just redirected [[User:Chris Markides]] (while logged in) and [[User:Stephen Rapley]] (while not logged in) and had no problem with either. Could you try leaving one of these bad redirects in place for a bit so I can examine it? [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Friday, May 17, 2002

I think the redirect only work if you leave a space between the "REDIRECT" and the link you're redirecting to. This wasn't the case before, was it? [[user:jheijmans|jheijmans]]

:That's the first thing I checked (since that recently came up), but Karen's redirects included a space. They look just fine, and identical to the ones I put in that worked. So I'm a bit stumped for now... [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]]

:Wait, wait... Karen, does the problem look the same as from this redirect page: [[Devangari alphabet]]? (That is, it takes you to a page entitled <nowiki>"#REDIRECT [[Devanagari]]"</nowiki> or similar, *with* the "#REDIRECT" and brackets in the title?) The redirect there looks fine, with a space and everything; I suspect an endline character weirdness or something... Possible fix now in CVS. [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Friday, May 17, 2002

----

'''Weirdness after editing a Talk page'''

After I save an edited Talk page (and only then - not when I look at one), there's this error message on top:

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/wiki-newest/work-http/wikiPage.php on line 215

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/wiki-newest/work-http/wikiPage.php on line 219

The page itself looks fine if you leave and then look at it again (I didn't try what might happen if I immediately reloaded the page.) I only noticed this happening as of today. -- [[user:Marj Tiefert|Marj Tiefert]], Friday, May 17, 2002

:This happens whenever you save a new page for the first time; it does seem to be new (within the last few days). I'm not quite sure what's wrong, but it looks to be related to the bit that checks for pages that link to the new page and clears their cache. It's mostly harmless; it just means that links to newly created pages might continue to look like nonexistent links for a while. I'll try to fix it... [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Friday, May 17, 2002

:Got it; coupla one-character typos in the code. Sigh. [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Monday, May 20, 2002

 <span style="color:red;">STATUS: FIXED IN CVS as of 2002-05-20</span>

----