I don't think so. You and I have not talked, we need to talk. Now listen here Manny, you were dishonest about it back in November well you don't call the shots here, NOW YOU ARE GOING TO LISTEN. You lied to me. You didn't like me lying about who I was on the wikia and you can't even clarify a damn thing about why we can't talk now due to "evidence" you refuse to cite. This crap has gone on long enough. You may be an administrator, but you're not a reasonable individual. I know what you'll say but I don't care, all I wanted was for us to have that dialogue and the last seven months prove you were a liar the entire time. WE're here because you misled me, Manuel De La Fuente. And you think I'm the only unreasonable one between us? You may not like to hear me talk, you may call me a spammer, but dude..........you lied to me. I'm going to hold you accountable regardless of your admin status. Just like you held me accountable for my attitude and for spewing spoliers in places I should not have been.
How do you avoid bumping up against a reviewer? Great question. There are no real rules because it's simply a matter of unpredictable timing.
But that's the case of the software telling me as the reviewer that I need to finish up one review before starting another.
You encountered that once, but you also had a different thing. I remember an instance of a review request three or four revisions back from a current revision that hadn't been submitted for review. All of them were made within a few hours, so in a case like that, I'm going to think that the situation is fluid and volatile. So I'll reject the older revision to await the next submission.
In other cases, I've approved an old revision because it's an obvious step forward that has no real issues. Again, it just really depends.
Whatever the case, please don't think you're annoying us by contributing too quickly. We'll let you know, as I once did, if you need to put a hold on your contributions to give us time to do a full review of your work. You're never inconveniencing us by submitting multiple revisions. We like that you're enthusiastic enough to keep improving your code. It's just that there may be occasions where you're submitting faster than we can reasonably review. But I can no more predict what's "too fast" than I can imagine what it might mean for my trusty hound to give me "too much" affection.
Hmm, well, this is exactly what I asked in my last message of our previous conversation (that got no reply).
I did think it would be difficult for you to review so many edits so I was avoiding to send them until I had something worthy of reviewing; but right after that I noticed that someone had sent the last edit to review, and the next time I edited it happened again (I thought it was yourself or one of the mods); so seeing the situation and the lack of answer to my question I thought that was how it was supposed to be so I continued sending revisions by parts.
If you want to know, today's edit was the last of my refactoring process. The code is acceptable enough now so I was hoping to continue tomorrow with adding the features I have in my ToDo; only the first three as the others don't make much sense unless there's enough interest from the community (I don't even know if someone has installed this script yet). This is also taking time from me and I need to continue focusing on the wiki I'm admin at.
Heya :) Thanks for submitting your code w:c:dev:DiscussionsActivity.js to the JS Review process. We're discussing it internally, but we wanted to loop in staff members from widely varying time zones. It may take a little extra time to perform this review. In the meantime, we'd ask that you not submit any further revisions to this code, as it will force -- for technical reasons having to do with the JS Review tool itself -- rejection of the revision currently under review.
Thanks for your patience as our wider team takes a look at your hard work!
I see, thank you for letting me know. I did think on sending that second revision after the script was approved but I decided to do it before since it was to isolate the functions, and I didn't want the script to be launched with they working on the global namespace. I also noticed that the previous revision was rejected with no reason stated, but I've been waiting for the second one to be reviewed before taking further action.
Hey :) So, due to time zone differences amongst staff members, we were having further discussions about your code, even after it got approved. And we discovered a vulnerability we'd like for you to address before this code grows too much more. For that reason, I've rejected your latest revision.
We're worried that you're getting JSON values from the Discussions service, and those values are therefore not HTML escaped. So just getting the username from the service can be a worry, because it could theoretically contain unescaped HTML.
Could you please go back through your code and wrap all the values drawn from the Discussions service in mw.html.escape so that we're properly protecting against unescaped HTML? Thanks :)
Heya :) You added several revisions of DiscussionsActivity.js after the one you submitted for review. So I've rejected #71836 purely because it's somewhat pointless to review something that's three or four revisions back from current. Please feel free to resubmit once you get the code in the shape you want it.
Yeah, that's why I did it. At first I thought on submitting the modifications in chunks so you wouldn't have to review large amounts of code each time, but then I realized that continuous submits would be annoying so I continued editing without sending the newer modifications to cancel that revision. Since I'm just refactoring the code and not adding new features or fixing bugs I prefer not to bother the staff with them since it makes no difference for the end user.
By the way, I'd like to know if there's any guidelines or best practices for contributing code to Fandom, since I've found myself confused in some aspects. For example, I know that the code needs to be ES3-compliant and include semicolons (which my linter was removing) because I found it out by myself after Wikia's editor threw me errors, none of that was stated anywhere. And what I mentioned about the preferred frequency and size of the submits, or how to properly cancel one, or if there's any methods or coding practices the staff recommends, or if during revision you noticed that I could improve a certain part.
Basically, how to contribute code correctly to Fandom and make it easier for both parties.
Hmm, I don't see how such an attack would be possible. makeChbx() is defined within the scope of checkboxes(), neither of them take user input and the entire code is wrapped in an IIFE. That inner function exists solely to be used in the two calls immediately below. I don't know how someone would be able to call it from the outside. 🤔
No problem, thank you for letting me know those concerns. :)
I suppose it would be preferable that I send the code for the three upcoming features in a single edit? And maybe not posting the progress on the site at all to prevent third parties from clicking the "Submit for review" button when I'm not ready to send it yet (I think there should be a restriction so that only the last person who edited can see that button).
If you need help, feel free to leave me a message; you may also want to visit the forums or join us on Chat. You can also check the staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia.