iirc if labels are "release artist" on bandcamp we shouldn't put it on mb (or if so, thne VA as the name)
yeah it's a compilation release by artists from the label but on every streaming platforms the release artist is the name of the label and artists are featured so I'm puzzled
we can have recordings copyrighted to artists instead of labels, perhaps we should allow label as artists too ?
I don't have an opinion on this (yet), just thinking aloud
I'm pretty sure label entity instead of artist on releases is a schema change :D
we're still before the schema change of may though right? riiight? :)
We had to confirm the list of stuff to do a month ago :p
what's your opinion on stuff like this though ?
Should we strip the mello music group from artist credit ?
Lotheric: honestly I'd probably just do VA here - it just looks like a label sampler?
it's new tracks, not tracks already released
don't think it's a sampler of stuff already released
Well, sure, but still
Dunno, if Label X puts out "this is a bunch of new tracks by our artists" I wouldn't say that's any less VA
xtim_41 joined the channel
jojo76 joined the channel
jojo76 has quit
Cheezmo joined the channel
jojo99 joined the channel
Sylvhem has quit
Sylvhem joined the channel
Hi! I'm new to contributing to MusicBrainz and am trying to access the "add" pages (add artist, label, release group, etc) through the development server but keep getting an Unauthorized Request page saying that I need to verify my email. But, to my understanding the development server doesn't allow you to save an email. Could someone point me in
the right direction
jojo99: if you're running your own server, you can probably do Edit User, set an email, and skip verification, at the very least
I tried that but it still required me to verify my email. Once I did that, I was able to edit.
Once I responded to the verification email.
Huh. Even if you select the skip verification checkbox?
Guess we broke this somehow
I'll try again.
Same result. Started a new account with the same email address. Updated the account profile and checked the "Skip verification" box. Updates saved (Changed my profile to Auto Editor), but still can't do any edits.
Difference is that the verification email says that the email address is already in use.
But you re-entered the mail when selecting "skip verification", right?
This is a guess, but I wonder if the check box only means not to require an email verification for those profile changes being submitted (and not the overall account verification).
<reosarevok> But you re-entered the mail when selecting "skip verification", right? Yup.
I wrote the checkbox code, it's meant to just save the email address immediately (and at least originally it did that)
And I think that it does. But it dosn't seem to have any impact on the original account validation.
I mean, yes, it won't affect the original email at all, since we don't even store we sent that
All we store is the address, if and when it gets validated
But it should still validate the email you entered *there*, and allow you to edit
If it doesn't it is buggy
Did a quick test locally, and I can edit just fine after doing that
I tried again and this time it seems to have worked. Let me try another test with a new test account.
Ignoring the original email (in fact I don't have email set up locally so it failed to send)
Yes, it works. Just not very intuitive (in my opinion).
It's not meant to be, this is an admin tool
jojo99: a development server does allow you to save an email, FWIW :) It's just you might not have it set up to be able to send mail in the first place, and in general it'd be messier to do it that way.
thanks everyone ! It worked for me without verification.
Easiest option if you have sample data is to just log in as me - reosarevok / pass mb (the default)
Oh, ok, then that's good too :D
Beta done, updating production
Fair enough. What this really means is that the user typically still needs to respond to the account verification email (from the test server) to be able to do editing. Doesn't this potentially expose their email address?
I guess we could have something that skips the verification process if you're using a test server, although that'd make it harder to test the verification process :D
It's fine the way it is. Just curious about the possible email address being exposed.
I mean, there is that warning on the main page of the test server.
Hmm, I guess that's a fair point
Old accounts are marked verified but have no email stored
pinoaffe has quit
pinoaffe joined the channel
But if you add a new one, you'll need to add your email, and I guess everyone would be able to see that...
djinni` has quit
bitmap: ^ should we make it so that any new user in test servers is verified by default?
(we can still set a new email if we want to test the verification process)
Could you show a bogus email address for a profile unless you're logged into that profile? Not sure if that makes sense...
That might still allow you to test the verification process.
That doesn't help if the password is mb
Since I could just log in as you :)
I guess if you added a new account you set your own pass though, huh
All passwords are mb? I must have missed that. ;-) I set my password on the new account.
Sylvhem has quit
Just as I would on the production system.
All *default* passwords are mb, if you log in with an existing account
But yeah, I guess if you add your own new account, then it has your own new pass
reosarevok: if DB_STAGING_TESTING_FEATURES is enabled, that seems sensible
So the proper flow is for a new user to create an account in production first, then switch to test to try and learn how to do things before applying their changes to prod?
There are some users that want to work in a sandbox before venturing into actual production edits. Perhaps not many...
I'm actually one of them. I like to make sure that I (sort of) know what I'm doing first so that I don't f*ck something up.
(Or appear to look really stupid in public.) ;-)
djinni` joined the channel
jojo99 has quit
rdswift: you could just use my account or any other existing account
I usually do my stupid edits as ruaok :p
(and the smart ones as myself)
gnafu has quit
adhi001 has quit
Sylvhem joined the channel
TOPIC: MusicBrainz Community | See #metabrainz for development and the other *Brainz’s | Channel is logged; see https://musicbrainz.org/doc/IRC for details | Latest Release: https://blog.metabrainz.org/?p=8800 | Picard 2.6 released! https://picard.musicbrainz.org
Lotheric: I'd set the release artists to VA FWIW. I've seen a few labels' listing themselves as artists on BC. I think it's something to do with the way the backend forms work that prompts people to do that.
I've even seen it for single artists release actually!
They released other compilation and they are VA on MB
I'll wait for the merge to go through and will do that
Rexodys[m], it's probably self-released, indie artist using a digital distributor
That is what I thought but you are never sure haha
You found the wbsite, you are better than me 😂
25$ setup fee + 9% of the sales. Damn and ppl complained about steam/google taking 30% haha
Oh nvm read that wrong. thought they were taking 91% o.O