Forum:Switching to the new parser

Hi all,

There will soon be some important code changes in the software we use at Wikia. There is a new version of the "preprocessor", which converts the text you enter in the edit box into the formatted text on the article page. This has a few differences to the old version, so switching over is likely to cause some pages to show errors - in particular pages with complex templates and formatting, and pages that contain faulty HTML. We can't update the main software until this switch over is done on all wikis, so it is important that we get it done soon.

Most wikis should see very little effect, so the first wikis to be switched will be those that are inactive and those that our tests show are likely to have very few pages affected. After that we will help the more active wikis and those with a lot of problem pages to fix problems before they are switched.

To see which group your wiki is in, you can check the list at Forum:Switching to the new parser/group list. If you are listed there, you are in group 2. Everyone else is in group 1.

The new parser will be switched for group 1 on Tuesday, February 10th. If you see any problems, then the first thing to do is check your pages and templates for bad formatting - especially unclosed HTML tags. If you can't see what to change, then please contact us using the form at Special:Contact and we'll give you a hand.

For group 2, there are lists of pages that might have issues linked from the group list.

The switch will happen for group 2 on February 17th or March 3rd. You may want to look at the list of pages before then and fix any problems. If you need advice, please check the help page or contact us using the Special:Contact form.

Thanks - sannse (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New Parser / Wikipedia templates
Hi Sannse will this new version help solve the mal/non functioning Wikipedia template problems I'v got at Tractor Wiki or will it give me more ?

- BulldozerD11 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which template? Most non-simple templates cannot be used here directly from Wikipedia without some recoding. Can you please leave me a link to the template on your wiki (NOT here), I'll take a look at it. --Uberfuzzy 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK Put a load of links to various related templates and discussion at Wikipedia with the creator of some of them on your talk page at TW. Thanks for looking into it. I'll check back later today as Im on GMT time  -- BulldozerD11 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these are more likely to be to do with an extension they use (and we don't) called HTMLTidy. Although they are using the new parser, so it could be a factor -- sannse (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the list actually mean (in plain english0 Are they all pages that fail the test then as looks a lot !! But the most pages have one or more Navigation templates on them. With more to come. The WP function templates are Intricate as have nested doc pages in most as well. - BulldozerD11 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they don't all have 'errors' but their current versions render differently than the one after the parser upgrade. this can be something as small as adding a class to an element, when there is an issue, it's usually caused by incorrect formatting of templates, once the templates are fixed, most pages should be fine -- Sixorish 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Images
It seems the wiki code to make an image appear will be a tad different with the new thing. If i use my userpage at fr.guildwars as an exemple, images are currently showing perfectly with a code like this :. But after the change, the image will appear full size and the specified size will be use as the name of the image and popup when we mouse over.

I'm not sure how to correct this. It seems the order of the parameter or the way it handle optional parameter has change. Anyway, this mean that every single image call on the 10 000+ pages of fr.guildwars need to be changed. And this wont be feasible by a bot since we dont have a constant string to search; name of images is changing and the size too. Sometimes it will be easier since a single template edit would do the trick.

So, is it really the way images code is handled that will change or were we doing it wrong from the start ? If something is changing, what is it exactly ? — TulipVorlax 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh ! I think i got it.
 * Only the width of images can be specify and the height is calculated automatically. — TulipVorlax 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, now i need the way to ask AutoWikiBrowser to find for me all pages with a string like 000px000px but i'm not to good with regex. — TulipVorlax 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does AutoWikiBrowser look at page text? For that string, maybe you just need something like "(.*)px(.*)px" Although I don't claim to be good with regex either -- sannse (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Last version of AWB contain many bugs so i will have to wait for this. — TulipVorlax 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed your template. see your user page now.

The size parameter on images takes "##px" for a max width, or a "##x##px" for a max height and max width (in that order). Your template was using "45px45px", which technically, was asking for the max height of "45p", which under the old parser, the p was ignored. Under the new parser, it was an error, and the whole size parameter was ignored, showing the full size image inside the userbox.

fix was here

Adjust any other templates that use a max width and max height thumbnail size to the correct format before the switch --Uberfuzzy 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i was refactoring our sidebar and saw your edits.. I undertsand now how the size is specified now. I'll see on AWB if they'll fix the bugs soon (so i can search for this). — TulipVorlax 05:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

class="mw-redirect"
Many pages on thoses lists only show change to link that point to a redirect page wich consist of a new CSS class so they'll be of a different color. Could pages that dont contain any other kind of change be excluded from thoses list as this is not really usefull and not a problem at all. — TulipVorlax 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like I had the unfiltered data there, which didn't exclude some of these irrelevant differences. The versions there now are filtered, and so should be more manageable! -- sannse (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont know, it seems to contain more links now and they're all have &timing=1&uselang=en at the end. But i'm using a text editor to do search replace of things anyway (like "http" >> "* http"). — TulipVorlax 16:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I confirm, the added class is still there. I copy the list on c:fr.guildwars:Forum:Futur parseur. You can use the clickables links there... — TulipVorlax 16:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Number of lines is bigger because we now have many times the same page in the list. — TulipVorlax 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I'm sorry about that. I'll get them checked (although it's the weekend for Poland now, so this will probably have to wait until Monday).  We will make sure that you are ready before the switch! -- sannse (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's ok. I think we have already fixed the highly used templates that was causing most of the bugs. Surely there's some left but we have enough time (almost a month). — TulipVorlax 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Template loop detected
On fr.guildwars (like on GuildWiki), we have many pages that call a template named exactly the same as the page. On every single of them, with the new parser we will have an error message in red saying there's a template loop. Exemple : Coup de paume

I just tested the same page on GuildWiki, they have no problem so it might be something in the main template Modèle:Compétence. Originally this template was calling another template (Modèle:Compétence m wich would effectively produce a loop) but i just got rid of that and the error message still appear.

Can't see why. Maybe too tired... — TulipVorlax 06:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Found an even worst case. — TulipVorlax 07:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some issues with template:lieu transcluding itself, I think I fixed it, did I break any pages? -- Sixorish 12:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't know yet.
 * The problem seem fixed now on the template Compétence. I guess the changes i've done was ok. — TulipVorlax 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

updated
I've updated the list with dates based on the latest figures -- sannse (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Er..tibia.wikia already got this parser upgrade? the parser diffs show issues which occurred prior to the parser but are 'fixed' now.. -- Sixorish 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about section editing
I have noticed on pages such as c:runescape:Template:Infobox_familiar(Diff) that the section edited is different between the old and new parsers. Is this intended behaviour? Currently I am checking all 4076 pages and fixing if needed, I also noticed some deleted pages are on that list. - CatcrewserTalk 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, here is another example except without the T-n c:runescape:Template:Template:POH_room(Diff) - CatcrewserTalk 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This was entirely my fault. I had to turn on the new parser to use a program to cleanup the recent vandal attack, and i forgot to turn it off when i was done. I'll turn it back off now until the scheduled date. mea culpa? --Uberfuzzy 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I take that back, that was a different wiki. so many wikis, so many vandals, cant keep them straight. new parser is still off at runescape.
 * Yes, the section id change IS intentional. new parser now knows which "edit section" links should point to the template where that section is actually on, and not the section on the current page. there was cases where sections added from text on a template would mess up the count of the sections on a page and make section edit links open the wrong section. --Uberfuzzy 04:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No longer in 2a?
Redwall was in 2a, now we are not? -- LordTBT Talk! 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)