Help talk:JavaScript review process

Response time
At Community Connect, a turnaround time for the review process was given as 24-hours. Is that still true? -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 10 Sep 2015 2:48 PM Pacific


 * We are certainly aiming for a fast turnaround - but we really can't be very specific at this point, as this is an entirely new process for everyone involved. If the process turns out to be too slow, we'll work out how to deal with that. This is certainly an ongoing project, after all. 12:09, September 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the current average response time? The revision I submitted for review 11 hours ago still hasn't been reviewed. -452 03:04, December 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't really give an average response time. What I can say is that I've had a revision take less than a day, maybe even less than 12 hours to be approved. I also have had revisions take up to 2 full days to be approved. --

Chat.js
Does the javascript test mode apply to the chat? If it doesn't, I do feel it probably should if possible, given that chat modifications/scripts are common and naturally we'd want to see if they work properly or not before sending them off for review.

17:39, October 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe it should apply to chat too. Let us know via Special:Contact if it does not! 15:47, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Outside Wikia Recommendations/Approvals
How can one submit an outside-of-Wikia library and/or script to be reviewed and approved? It says a "case-by-case basis" and yet it lacks the information as to where one can create a case for a non-Wikia script. ~Curiouscrab (talk) 20:33, November 8, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think using the comments within the JS file that calls would be a good place for the initial rationale. If the reviewers have concerns about it, the discussion can then continue on the JS talk page. We can't provide specific rules about what would and would not be allowed, as they are very case-dependent and will likely change over time. 20:13, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Editing after submitting

 * Q: What if I need to make more edits after I submit my script for review?
 * A: Each JS page can only have one revision in the review queue. While you can make further edits after requesting a review, only the originally requested revision will be reviewed. If you want us to review a newer version, simply submit the page for review again - this will overwrite the previous request.

After making a test edit, submitting it, then editing again, the message "#X is awaiting review" is replaced with only "#X needs to be submitted", saying nothing the status of the previous submission.

Can anyone confirm that after you submit a revision for review, then make further edits, that the originally submitted revision remains in the review queue and will eventually be approved/denied? -452 03:04, December 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, it remains in the queue. It's a rare situation, but the messaging could certainly be improved. 18:38, December 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * I have since tested this, and have confirmed that in this situation, the previously submitted revision was later approved. -452 20:22, December 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I will make sure to talk to the team about improving this experience. 21:04, December 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Any progress in the last (almost) four years? :P Somebody1234 (talk) 01:43, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Do importArticles, importScriptPage and MediaWiki:ImportJS reject scripts from USER namespace?
This was actually a subject of a discussion in w:c:dev. I might recall this incorrectly, and this page doesn't make it very clear.

Does staff deliberately rejects code that contains these imports or the MediaWiki extension blocks importArticles,  importScriptPage and MediaWiki:ImportJS attempting to load articles from the User namespace? Or both?

Dessamator (talk) 13:47, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * I use importArticles to load scripts from the user namespace which don't end in .js - this may not fully answer your question, I suggest you test each scenario yourself. :) -452 14:37, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * We deliberately reject code that includes this kind of reference as part of the review process, and ImportJS only allows MW namespace imports. 15:36, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kirkburn: Thanks for clearing that up. Then the enforcement doesn't seem consistent, for instance this (http://dev.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:ChatOptions/code.js) script was pre-approved by the bot automatically, which is normal. However, later on the script was changed by someone, and presumably reviewed by staff and approved. I know scripts in dev.wikia have a special status since some of them may be used by individual users and not wiki-wide. But it still seems odd to allow such scripts to import from user pages in different wikis.


 * @452: I'm well aware of the hack and I actually meant loading scripts from the User namespace using the Common.js /Wikia.js / Monobook.js.  The fact is likely that short of blocking all network requests  that contain a specific pattern, there isn't a good way to prevent this mainly because we can always use ajax method to obtain it, and bypass mediawiki / extension API.
 * Dessamator (talk) 22:10, March 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * @Dessamator: thanks - I'll flag that up with the team. 13:54, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

Um?
Are'nt most code in languages unreadable? please correct me if i'm wrong.

MEMZ (talk) 12:21, September 29, 2018 (UTC)MEMZ