[01:16:42] <wikibugs>	 10JADE, 10Scoring-platform-team: Investigate MCR support gap for JADE purposes - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T204303 (10daniel) For the initial use case of JADE (revision judgments), MCR is not the obvious choice, so this probably isn't relevant for now.   For the record, I'd like to give a quick update:...
[09:24:29] <wikibugs>	 10Scoring-platform-team, 10Wikilabels: The skip button doesn't work on fullscreen - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208022 (10Ladsgroup)
[09:30:53] <wikibugs>	 10JADE, 10Scoring-platform-team (Current), 10Release-Engineering-Team, 10Continuous-Integration-Config, 10Patch-For-Review: Keep JADE compatible with MediaWiki LTS - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207678 (10hashar) DonationInterface is the only such case right now. We surely should generalize the ide...
[09:31:04] <wikibugs>	 10JADE, 10Scoring-platform-team (Current), 10Release-Engineering-Team, 10Continuous-Integration-Config, 10Patch-For-Review: Keep JADE compatible with MediaWiki LTS - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207678 (10hashar)
[11:30:21] <wikibugs>	 10ORES, 10Scoring-platform-team, 10Gerrit: Research Project Idea: Use AI to suggest improvements to patches uploaded to gerrit - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195235 (10Physikerwelt)
[12:41:26] <wikibugs>	 10Scoring-platform-team, 10Wikilabels: The skip button doesn't work on fullscreen - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208022 (10MichaelSchoenitzer_WMDE) I assume the confirmation-promt ist behind the fullscreen-plane. (Wrong z-index)
[17:07:50] <wikibugs>	 10JADE, 10Scoring-platform-team: Split judgment content schema by entity type - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208067 (10awight)
[17:11:04] <harej>	 awight: what would be the benefit in splitting up the content types?
[17:11:54] <halAFK>	 ^ 
[17:23:09] <harej>	 It's in an email from Daniel Kinzler that I was just CC'd on.
[17:23:46] <harej>	 Basically it allows for differentiated behavior for different types of judgments, which we may (in the future) want.
[17:57:52] <awight>	 harej: Hey sorry, IRL visitor snuck up on me... for an hour :-/
[17:58:26] <halAFK>	 If it costs us nothing, fine.  But this is a product scoping issue.  Would we ever want to scope JADE to allow for different consensus workflows based on entity?  I think not.  If we ever would do that, it would be based on schema. 
[18:00:22] <awight>	 harej: I don't have a solid understanding of the implications yet, but I'm assuming it would be a normalization thing.  If two types of data will never be mixed, they should have separate explicit types rather than a weird polymorphic schema.
[18:05:02] <harej>	 What would this split look like to the user?
[18:05:03] <awight>	 halAFK: I think I missed something.  We *are* planning to have disjoint workflows based on entity type.
[18:05:18] <awight>	 harej: It wouldn't look like anything, since content model is not exposed.
[18:05:31] <halAFK>	 awight, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. 
[18:05:39] <awight>	 kk that's was I was hoping :)
[18:06:21] <halAFK>	 I was imagining our schemas: E.g. proposition, endorsements, preference/consensus bit, etc.  The schema structure around the actual data schemas.  
[18:07:14] <awight>	 Ah so i.e. that revision and diff judgments might diverse more than now, where everything is shared except the judgment.schema.*
[18:07:22] <awight>	 *diverge
[18:08:08] <wikibugs>	 10JADE, 10Scoring-platform-team: Discuss splitting judgment content schema by entity type - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208067 (10awight)
[18:08:24] <awight>	 ^ that was supposed to be a question rather than a fait accompli, so I've tweaked the task title.
[18:10:52] <awight>	 Also, AIUI the cost of splitting content models is near-zero, so I'm personally happy to do this even if the only benefit would be to help one of the authors of the content handler infra to regain sanity ;-)
[18:22:23] <awight>	 BTW, here's a strange conversation you both might want to catch up with, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T205921
[18:23:37] <awight>	 ... if only because it gives some insight into what people are saying about the content-model ID
[18:25:10] <awight>	 switching to a new content-model version if we make breaking changes feels dramatic to me, but OTOH it's a reasonable and unquestionably effective way to support migration paths.
[18:43:21] <halAFK>	 I guess the primary alternative is to have the version appear in the content JSON itself. 
[18:43:28] <halAFK>	 Which wouldn't work well for wikitext for sure. 
[18:44:20] <halAFK>	 A secondary concern is whether or not a secondary field is used or if content-model becomes a compound type of "<model name>-<version>" or something like that. 
[18:44:21] <halAFK>	 Right?
[18:52:50] <halAFK>	 awight, ^ 
[19:13:36] * halAFK --> lunch
[19:39:23] <awight>	 halAFK: Yeah that was the specific discussion, but what I wanted to point out is that the content-model designers' thinking is consistent with this new suggestion about having a very specific model ID for each use case.
[19:53:04] <awight>	 I agree with your other hypotetical, BTW, that if we had mutually exclusive use cases within the revision-judgment type, we could break that into further subtypes of model ID.  But we probably won't, like you also said.
[19:55:08] <awight>	 Diff and revision judgments are mutually exclusive, is how I was looking at it.  I think that's actually an example of the differentiated behavior harej mentioned at 17:23
[19:58:15] <harej>	 Would splitting the content model make the lives of our downstream developers easier?
[20:00:43] <harej>	 Or harder? Or neither?
[20:11:53] <awight>	 Oh, here's a conclusive reason it's a good idea.  Revision and Diff pages can't be moved between one or the other title since the data is incompatible.
[20:13:17] <awight>	 It's the Liskov subtitution principle...  if we can't use the subclasses interchangeably, then their common, close ancestry is irrelevant.
[20:13:48] <awight>	 It's just a shortcut we took in order to write less PHP code.
[20:36:25] <wikibugs>	 (03PS1) 10Awight: [WIP] Index some data extracted from judgment page content [extensions/JADE] - 10https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/470061 (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T206352)
[21:55:27] <wikibugs>	 (03PS2) 10Awight: [WIP] Index some data extracted from judgment page content [extensions/JADE] - 10https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/470061 (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T206352)
[22:08:07] <wikibugs>	 (03CR) 10Awight: "oops, "Test for JudgmentContentHandler"." [extensions/JADE] - 10https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/469546 (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T206352) (owner: 10Awight)
[23:11:10] <wikibugs>	 10JADE, 10Scoring-platform-team (Current), 10Advanced-Search, 10Discovery-Search, and 4 others: Extract judgment data for search indexing - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T206352 (10awight) I haven't found any examples of AdvancedSearch integration, it might not be extensible yet.  At least, the CirrusS...