#metabrainz

/

      • SigHunter joined the channel
      • Goemon joined the channel
      • HSOWA joined the channel
      • HSOWA has quit
      • HSOWA joined the channel
      • dseomn has quit
      • dseomn joined the channel
      • __BrainzGit
        [musicbrainz-server] 14mwiencek opened pull request #3581 (03master…mbs-14075): MBS-14075: Adjust `edits_pending` for entities with open relationship edits https://github.com/metabrainz/musicbrainz-serve...
      • BrainzBot
        MBS-14075: URLs with open edits can be auto-removed https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-14075
      • holycow23[m]
        lucifer: I gave a try to run the other stats as well and ran into the same trace, let me know what setup procedures need to be followed to resolve it
      • pite has quit
      • petitminion joined the channel
      • vardhan joined the channel
      • __BrainzGit
        [musicbrainz-server] 14reosarevok merged pull request #3575 (03master…MBS-14065): MBS-14065: Show artist credits in release editor duplicates tab https://github.com/metabrainz/musicbrainz-serve...
      • BrainzBot
        MBS-14065: Show artist credits in release editor duplicates tab https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-14065
      • lusciouslover has quit
      • lusciouslover joined the channel
      • petitminion has quit
      • mamanullah7[m]
        lucifer: i've tried to use the endpoints to use cliend id & secrest dynamically! but somtimes i get auth_url and somtimes getting this error... (full message at <https://matrix.chatbrainz.org/_matrix/media/v3/...>)
      • i think ive to wait now! again for testing limit reached per one day!!
      • when first i redirected to authorise i got error: invalid access token! something like that!
      • allen joined the channel
      • Maxr1998_ joined the channel
      • Maxr1998 has quit
      • reosarevok[m]
        Jade, aerozol, julian45: heh, just noticed a small issue with the moving-to-automated-email option for autoeditor elections. Right now we link to the *forum* thread where the proposer explains why they think the person should be an autoeditor.
      • But that's not really something that can be automated, unless we require a forum thread link when proposing someone and store it in the database...
      • The current template:
      • reosarevok[m] sent a code block: https://matrix.chatbrainz.org/_matrix/media/v3/download/chatbrainz.org/VVlOlocbPFVDMEJtjYwSekEb
      • julian45[m]
        that doesn't seem like too much of a lift IMO
      • if discourse supports some form of delegated auth or "seeding" harmony-style, maybe one possible path would be to create the post as part of the election initiation process, in a somewhat automated manner? (delegated auth = discourse programmatically posts on user's behalf after obtaining consent, seeding = flow where user is redirected to discourse to create a post, then once the post is up it redirects back to MB to proceed with
      • the rest of the initiation process)
      • but if neither of those is possible, it may be simplest to just require a link to forum post when nominating, then simply have the nominator update their forum post w/ the MB election link once the election has begun?
      • Jade[m]1
        Would be a bit more complex, but is possible
      • I could also change the process a bit so that the thread is started by a bot, if delegation doesn't work
      • s/I//
      • reosarevok[m]
        I mean, if we just have a bot-started thread, then we might as well just send the mail :)
      • (and link to the election directly)
      • We currently point to the thread because it involves the proposer giving proper reasonings and whatnot
      • I mean, I guess in a way it would be like the old way (where the election sent an automated email to the elections mailing list and the proposer wrote back with their reasoning)
      • It's just easier to skip responding to a forum thread which doesn't come to your email (but that might be me being old and thinking people read and react to their emails more than browser stuff)
      • Jade[m]1
        reosarevok[m]: Could have it so the proposer puts the reasoning in the proposal directly
      • reosarevok[m]: I mean this is always an "it depends" thing lol
      • reosarevok[m]
        Back in the day it wasn't because there weren't other options 😂
      • Jade[m]1: Hmm, maybe. I was thinking about avoiding code changes as much as possible but that could work I guess - we'd still need to figure a good way to post to the thread but I *assume* discourse offers something
      • (code changes to MBS itself other than "send email" I meant)
      • I would like aerozol to think about how the process could look like from the proposer's POV when around :)
      • Jade: do I understand correctly that I don't enter strings in the template itself, but in `en.json`?
      • (doing a first attempt at converting the template to the rust version)
      • kellnerd[m]
        Hmm, isn't it easier to let Discourse send an email for each new topic in the auto-editor category to all users in the https://community.metabrainz.org/g/MB_Autoeditors group?
      • Jade[m]1
        reosarevok[m]: Looking at their API right now
      • reosarevok[m]: Yep
      • t!("key.here") iirc
      • reosarevok[m]
        kellnerd[m]: I guess we could also do that, it would mean any elections started without a post get ignored entirely but that already happens now, so
      • Jade[m]1
        kellnerd[m]: I have no idea, but that did make me think of webhooks
      • reosarevok[m]
        We do still want to send a message on closing though... I do wonder if a combination of the two approaches would make the most sense, if we can do the discourse thing properly
      • Automatically starting the thread (proposer gives reasoning during proposal on the site and it gets posted) and automatically posting a "congrats" or "sorry but nope" email on closing
      • s/email/post/
      • (ideally on accepting results the editor would also be added to the autoeditors group)
      • [all of these things remind me of why we just ignored it and kept making me send the emails by hand 😅]
      • Jade[m]1
        reosarevok[m]: Yeah that makes sense
      • Discourse doesn't seem to have a nice flow like: app redirects to discourse -> user makes post -> app gets post ID
      • So I think the simplest solution would just be to have a bot account that takes in some markdown from the form
      • reosarevok[m]
        But doesn't that have the same issue?
      • If we don't get the post id, I mean
      • Jade[m]1
        reosarevok[m]: Hmm?
      • reosarevok[m]: If that flow existed, you could just not start the election until we got a valid link
      • reosarevok[m]
        If the bot posts, we still need the post id to save it and post to the same thread on closing, no?
      • (I mean, I guess we could, if nothing else works, just make a second post on closing)
      • Jade[m]1
        reosarevok[m]: What I would expect is that the create post endpoints returns the post ID
      • That's the normal style for these things
      • Looking for the endpoint now
      • <Jade[m]1> "What I would expect is that..." <- Yep this seems right
      • Jade[m]1: POST /posts.json... (full message at <https://matrix.chatbrainz.org/_matrix/media/v3/...>)
      • Jade[m]1 sent a json code block: https://matrix.chatbrainz.org/_matrix/media/v3/download/chatbrainz.org/NEUoDnAiTcALjoeQNgPwxqKk
      • Jade[m]1: > <@jade:ellis.link> POST /posts.json... (full message at <https://matrix.chatbrainz.org/_matrix/media/v3/...>)
      • Could also set rely_to_post_numher to make it link back to that first post
      • reosarevok[m]
        Sounds sensible. I wonder if it's possible to make discourse forcibly mail people even if they have not set up a mail preference?
      • Jade[m]1
        Probably not xD
      • Or at least not for a specific post
      • reosarevok[m]
        For the autoeditors category as kellnerd suggested, I was thinking