Last modified: 2013-04-22 16:16:57 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T44152, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 42152 - [Regression] All query pages (maintenance reports) updates are broken since 1.21wmf3
[Regression] All query pages (maintenance reports) updates are broken since 1...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
1.21.x
All All
: Immediate critical (vote)
: 1.21.0 release
Assigned To: Peter Youngmeisterarius
: code-update-regression, ops
: 41919 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-11-15 16:43 UTC by Scott Douglas
Modified: 2013-04-22 16:16 UTC (History)
14 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Scott Douglas 2012-11-15 16:43:32 UTC
29782 (given by User:Malyacko on Village pump (technical))

Hi there!

I often use the Special:SpecialPages links to quickly access places I watch for maintenance (mostly Special:BrokenRedirects). I can access such reports in other ways, but it seems the currently active reports linked on the SpecialPages page aren't updating, and haven't since November 4.

The live pages seem to be working fine, but the ones which require caching aren't updating.

No big deal, but thought somebody should know.

Thanks for all you folks' fine work.

Scott Douglas
Harvard, IL
Comment 1 Romaine 2012-11-15 17:36:05 UTC
We also have this same problem since November 1 on the Dutch Wikipedia (nl.wikipedia.org). Please keep on updating these pages! 

Romaine
Comment 2 Danny B. 2012-11-15 17:39:21 UTC
It's obviously halted everywhere...
Comment 3 Nemo 2012-11-15 19:07:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> It's obviously halted everywhere...

And does it correspond to the dates of 1.21wmf3 deployment everywhere?
Comment 4 Bohdan 2012-11-15 20:29:28 UTC
Same @ ukwiki
Comment 5 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-15 23:38:15 UTC
I know what's causing the breakage, but I'm not sure why.

Currently running manually in a screen session on hume

Probably take a little while to run.
Comment 6 Andre Klapper 2012-11-16 14:13:30 UTC
Reedy: Is bug 41919 the same issue (dup)?
Comment 7 Andre Klapper 2012-11-16 14:17:25 UTC
*** Bug 41919 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Nemo 2012-11-16 14:23:58 UTC
Clarifying summary: it's all query pages and it's for all wikis since the moment they switched to 1.21wmf3.
Comment 9 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-16 22:04:52 UTC
TBH, I couldn't care less bug stays open

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 41918 ***
Comment 10 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-17 00:31:03 UTC
I think this is caused by bug 42210, but I'm not sure for definite


Relatedly, my script run is upto frwiki currently...
Comment 11 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-17 14:01:30 UTC
Manual run has been completed across all wikis now.

Lowering priority/severity
Comment 12 Dennis C. During 2012-11-20 22:06:02 UTC
This shouldn't be closed at least until the automatic script runs once with complete success.
Comment 13 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-20 22:19:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> This shouldn't be closed at least until the automatic script runs once with
> complete success.

Indeed. Which is why I just changed the Importance of the bug as there had at least been a clusterwide run recently
Comment 14 Dennis C. During 2012-11-21 01:37:31 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > This shouldn't be closed at least until the automatic script runs once with
> > complete success.
> 
> Indeed. Which is why I just changed the Importance of the bug as there had at
> least been a clusterwide run recently

But the run was "manual". Is it sustainable to run it that way?

Is it better to kick the can down the road or keep the older bug report open until "completely" solved?
Comment 15 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-21 07:54:44 UTC
I submitted a hack/config variable addition to prevent the broken item from being executed and breaking the other updates.

Aaron has also committed what should be a fix to the hanging query, but its in need of testing and review. Deployment can then happen.

Obviously this is preferred.

Running it manually can be done easily enough with 1 shell command.
Comment 16 Dennis C. During 2012-11-21 15:49:41 UTC
Great. I'm glad that the manual run is easy, but good luck to Aaron with the testing and review of the more durable fix.
Comment 17 Rob Lanphier 2012-11-21 19:14:19 UTC
Removing as a deployment blocker, since we're not holding up 1.21wmf5 over this one.  Sam: a couple questions: 1. which commit from Aaron are we waiting on?  2.  Should this one be assigned to Aaron?
Comment 18 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-21 19:45:25 UTC
Aarons proposed fix is g33856

My "workaround" (read, disabling the broken code) was g33846
Comment 20 Krinkle 2012-11-22 19:41:56 UTC
Can the FlaggedRevs update be disabled so that the automated run will succeed and continue running for all other pages (or was that already done? Note sure whether Sam considered it or did it).
Comment 21 Dennis C. During 2012-11-24 12:12:57 UTC
The automatic runs were every few days or so. It has now been more than a week since the manual replacement run. Depending on a person's memory/schedule is not ideal from a user PoV.
Comment 22 Nemo 2012-11-24 17:31:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #20)
> Can the FlaggedRevs update be disabled so that the automated run will succeed
> and continue running for all other pages (or was that already done? Note sure
> whether Sam considered it or did it).

Is this confirmed to be a Flagged Revisions issue only? I've only checked a handful of wikis (not finding anything disproving it).
Comment 23 Krinkle 2012-11-25 18:18:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #20)
> Can the FlaggedRevs update be disabled so that the automated run will succeed
> and continue running for all other pages (or was that already done? Note sure
> whether Sam considered it or did it).

*bump*

Adding bug 38865 as blocker. This is an unacceptable regression. Yes, it was introduced in the previous deployment. But it seems the only way to get things done here is to block the next deployment.

People use these pages to work off of every day. For all I care uninstall FlaggedRevs globally, I don't care. Restore it please.
Comment 24 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-11-26 16:24:18 UTC
Revision to disable that module has been pushed to the cluster

Aarons fix is still to be reviewed and as such, deployed
Comment 25 Dennis C. During 2012-11-26 20:13:52 UTC
It isn't fixed until it is deployed.
Comment 26 Andre Klapper 2012-11-26 20:17:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #24)
> Revision to disable that module has been pushed to the cluster

Removing blocking 38865 as the module has been temporarily disabled and the situation does not block WMF-deployment itself anymore.

> Aarons fix is still to be reviewed and as such, deployed

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/33856/ is now merged. 
RESOLVED FIXED means that a fix has been merged in the codebase, not that it has been deployed on servers. Restoring previous state.
Comment 27 Dennis C. During 2012-12-04 23:23:51 UTC
It has now been more than a week since the last update of the special pages on en.wikt. Has the fix been deployed or is it time for another manual run?
Comment 28 Sam Reed (reedy) 2012-12-08 02:15:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #27)
> It has now been more than a week since the last update of the special pages
> on
> en.wikt. Has the fix been deployed or is it time for another manual run?

As it currently stands, it's now even more broken than it was before, as the job isn't at least being partially run. Due to the cronjobs not being puppetised and hume being re-installed
Comment 29 Dennis C. During 2012-12-08 17:41:01 UTC
Then it would seem inappropriate to call this "RESOLVED FIXED". Or is a new bug report the better course of action?
Comment 30 Aaron Schulz 2012-12-08 22:39:30 UTC
I don't know why this was closed, only the FR one should be.
Comment 31 Andre Klapper 2012-12-10 09:29:37 UTC
So we're running into the same issue again...

Aaron / Reedy: Any idea who could investigate the underlying reason?


> I don't know why this was closed, only the FR one should be.

Sorry - my fault, see comment 26.
Comment 32 Sumana Harihareswara 2012-12-14 14:22:08 UTC
Our users depend on these reports and if they're very out-of-date and broken then we should make it a priority to fix this issue.  I'm bumping it up to Immediate and I'll bring it up in a managers' meeting today.
Comment 33 Rob Lanphier 2012-12-14 19:48:21 UTC
So, here's the situation as I understand it talking to Aaron.  Aaron discovered that there were several cron jobs that were supposed to run on hume that weren't running, so he pointed this out to Peter Youngmeister, who deployed this:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/37946/

...on December 10.  So, this *should* be fixed now.  If it's not, reopen and ping the on-duty ops person.

Looking at this page (Special:ValidationStatistics):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Sichtungsstatistik

...it appears this has updated.
Comment 34 Dennis C. During 2012-12-20 15:06:00 UTC
It seems to be finally fixed, for real. Thanks.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links