[00:57:24] @cosmicalpha @reception123 so on the eventual to do we need to find the swift containers whos wikis are full feted righr? [00:58:44] If so I can try and work on a script to check if someone has a list of the container names (since subdomain is public private wikis shouldn’t be confidentiality I think? [00:58:55] May use it to try out rust or smt [00:59:56] Just need to not get blocked for 10k get requests, so rate limiting go be [01:02:05] I can't give you a full list of all 126,176 containers [01:03:09] that is a lot lol [01:03:15] But yes we do [01:04:06] [1/4] ```ps [01:04:06] [2/4] universalomega@mwtask181:~$ swift list | wc -l [01:04:06] [3/4] 126176 [01:04:07] [4/4] ``` [01:21:14] cosmicalpha: tf we have so many containers [01:21:22] what are they used for [01:21:40] Each wiki has multiple containers [01:21:52] but 126k is still high I think [01:21:56] y [01:22:17] Do they all have the database name in a consistent format? [01:22:23] different repo, local-public, local-temp, sp avatars, etc... [01:22:36] groan [01:22:48] yes miraheze-dbname-local-public is one example [01:24:17] [1/15] IE: [01:24:17] [2/15] ``` [01:24:17] [3/15] miraheze-metawiki-avatars [01:24:18] [4/15] miraheze-metawiki-awards [01:24:18] [5/15] miraheze-metawiki-createwiki-persistent-model [01:24:18] [6/15] miraheze-metawiki-dumps-backup [01:24:19] [7/15] miraheze-metawiki-local-deleted [01:24:19] [8/15] miraheze-metawiki-local-public [01:24:19] [9/15] miraheze-metawiki-local-temp [01:24:20] [10/15] miraheze-metawiki-local-thumb [01:24:20] [11/15] miraheze-metawiki-local-transcoded [01:24:21] [12/15] miraheze-metawiki-phonos-render [01:24:21] [13/15] miraheze-metawiki-timeline-render [01:24:22] [14/15] miraheze-metawiki-upv2avatars [01:24:22] [15/15] ``` [01:24:45] i would we could spit out a list of idk 1k for me to make a quick script on and then someone runs it directly on prod piping the list in but there's no way making an HTTP request 126k times is a good idea. so it would need to be done via the DB, so i cant really help with this without shell access [01:24:48] so much for that [01:25:01] also since when was SP enabled on meta [01:25:14] It isn't but all wikis have all containers it seems [01:25:17] I don't know why [01:25:23] even though the containers are empty [01:25:34] bru [01:25:46] createwiki-persistent-model is unqiue to meta but everything else is on all wikis [01:26:15] thats the AI? [01:26:23] Yes [01:27:08] And it makes sense why 126k containers now — 12 * 10,000 = 120k [01:27:17] And that is just rounding down [01:27:24] so 126k actually makes sense [01:32:45] huh [01:33:10] whats local temp [02:31:32] cosmicalpha: am i tripping or is the deleted value of CreateWiki state days just not used [02:31:44] not refered to in the V1 or V2 [02:32:10] That script only marks closed and inactive [02:32:19] deleteWikis deletes [02:32:31] I think? [02:32:40] Idk lol that always confuses me [02:32:41] it has code for deletion thats just commented out [02:33:01] does it use removed [02:33:25] i have to go for now [02:33:31] I can talk more later [02:33:39] but I'll be mostly away all weekend [02:33:46] yea [02:33:56] enjoy whatever you're doing [02:33:59] im gonna sleep [02:34:47] Me too since I have to wake up at 4AM tomorrow (usually what time I go to sleep lol) [02:35:02] yeesh [02:38:00] PHP hell returns in the morning [02:38:23] prob have a PR to bully you with on Monday(or do you get back tuesday [05:50:09] @rodejong @pixldev I have confirmed it was always this way. It was SORT_DESC before and it is SORT_DESC now. That has not changed. [05:51:36] [1/2] Before: [05:51:37] [2/2] After: [05:53:26] ohhh I guess it was always intended to be that way but was always broken maybe. In that case new behavior should be kept unless we want to actually change the prior broken behavior. The change was technically an unintentional bug fix maybe. [05:54:15] If it is a behavior we want changed that is fine. But it technically is how it has always been. [05:54:38] Late Monday afternoon [10:33:33] I never saw it newest first. To me it is logic to start with oldest first. So I propose that it returns to oldest first. @Wiki Creators ? [10:42:44] [1/2] Either is fine; I'm more used to asc order, but desc order also allows us to see the latest comments (which often contain more details) sooner [10:42:45] [2/2] I may add a reverse (asc order) option to WRAnGLer [16:25:09] I will put it back at ASC and maybe add a sort option to comments later allowing you to change the order there also. [16:26:40] Actually maybe not I do like seeing newest comments first lol its a hard decision also... [20:28:04] User pref? [21:13:30] Put it in wrangler indeed.