Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24531999-20160514180240/@comment-957747-20160523195706

Saftzie wrote: Wikia's content review isn't about catching errors or any other code quality issue. Although they say code that causes errors will be rejected(ref), it's completely about whether the change opens any JavaScript authentication/authorization holes. I'm pretty sure reviewers only look at the code. They don't actually test it.

This is quite true. While I will correct errors I see, the main point of the JSRT is to prevent malicious code -- not to verify that every bit of JS runs correctly.

Saftzie wrote: I think a bigger problem would be at dev, where any autoconfirmed user can edit any module imported by any (possibly several) wikis. The edit can break the module, but still get approved, and reverting it would also have to be approved, so in the meantime it's broken. Any admins who import conditionally via Common.js would even be blocked from removing the broken module, since that's a change that has to get approved, too. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Dev Wiki scripts are monitored more closely for changes due to the scope for just this reason.