Actually one more challenge. The CSS-only version of the accordion component does not seem to support actions. I tried a DIY implementation but clicking the button results in the accordion expanding as well. Also, even in OOUI, the popup button is a JS widget and we're currently refraining from adding JS widgets to this page due to T351818. Could we use the accordion description instead?

Also: we need an actual tooltip/alt label for both "info" buttons, so that the purpose of the button is understood by screen readers etc. Something like "Help" or "More information" would do.

In T364804#9974565, @ifried wrote:

My only concern is that we'll need to create the documentation, which doesn't exist yet, and I would like it to not be a blocker for the task. So how about I remove the link for this task and create a separate task to add in the link when the documentation has been created?

In T365629#9975154, @vaughnwalters wrote:

❓ Noting that Events in the article list get the "The following articles are not in the main namespace." error while other pages that are not in the main namespace (such as Special:EditEventRegistration in this example) get a different error. I think this is probably fine since it does still display an error, but just calling it out here because it is inconsistent. Is this something we would want to fix? It not, we can move this to design sign off.

In T364802#9974571, @gonyeahialam wrote:

In T364802#9963020, @Daimona wrote:

In T364802#9962489, @vaughnwalters wrote:

@cmelo Right now, even if I haven't generated an invitation list, but I go to Special:InvitationList I see the message Your list of editors to invite is being generated. Refresh the page in 5-10 minutes to view your invitation list. Is this expected for now? If so, then this ticket can be sent to design sign off.

Yup, that's the expected behaviour at this time.

@Daimona By 'at this time' you mean till the task for the copy change is done, right?

In T364804#9974535, @Daimona wrote:

In T364804#9974351, @gonyeahialam wrote:

In T364804#9974095, @Daimona wrote:

Also one more: should any of the accordions be open by default?

If it is possible to choose different behaviours, can the Highly recommended be open and the other one be closed by default?

Yes, it is possible. I'll do this.

In T364804#9974351, @gonyeahialam wrote:

In T364804#9974095, @Daimona wrote:

• Can we not hyperlink "invitation list criteria"? I think this will become redundant once we add a help link to this special page (which we also discussed yesterday). Speaking of which, should I create a task for that?

I wouldn't be redundant. It is good to have the help link on the special page but it is also best to surface the link where it is most likely to be needed. So when people see 'criteria' and they want to learn more they can immediately click on the link, it wouldn't be always obvious that they should click on the special page help link.

Also one more: should any of the accordions be open by default?

Thanks!

In T364804#9971301, @ifried wrote:

Hey there, @Daimona & @gonyeahialam: I have updated the AC based on our discussions today; let me know what you think, and thank you both for all of the questions you raised & ideas you shared!

Actually, yeah, I've got a question. What should happen when there are no users to invite?

In T364804#9967500, @ifried wrote:

@Daimona: Let me know if this looks good to go, or if you have any other open questions or concerns. Thanks!

@ifried @gonyeahialam Just a heads up that this task is currently marked as ready/in progress, so it'd be nice if we could finalize the AC. Also a couple more questions:

• I would also like to ask what the page title would be. Should it be "<invitation list name> invitation list" as in the specs? I wonder if that might be a bit confusing, depending on the name of the list. Maybe we could add a colon after the list name?

Given that a user hovers over the tooltip

In T367224#9963229, @ifried wrote:

In that case, @Daimona & @MHorsey-WMF, what do you think about a 100 wiki limitation for specifying the wiki of the event? Do you have any concerns from a technical perspective?

In T369033#9962586, @ifried wrote:

Hello, @Daimona & @gonyeahialam, I have updated the AC. I decided to include a different message for invalid ID, since I thought a message that is specific to this error would a) be more helpful to the user, and b) follow similar behavior found elsewhere (i.e., in Special:EventDetails). Let me know what you think and if you have any concerns. Thanks!

In T364802#9962489, @vaughnwalters wrote:

@cmelo Right now, even if I haven't generated an invitation list, but I go to Special:InvitationList I see the message Your list of editors to invite is being generated. Refresh the page in 5-10 minutes to view your invitation list. Is this expected for now? If so, then this ticket can be sent to design sign off.

In T369033#9956785, @gonyeahialam wrote:

In T369033#9954714, @Daimona wrote:

Eh, on second thought, we also need a message for when an invalid ID is provided, i.e., something that is not a number. For comparison, on Special:EventDetails we use the following message:

Provide a valid event ID.

@ifried @gonyeahialam

Can't we treat it the same as an ID that does not exist

Eh, on second thought, we also need a message for when an invalid ID is provided, i.e., something that is not a number. For comparison, on Special:EventDetails we use the following message:

Not testable, hence resolving.

In T268652#9946711, @debt wrote:

Hi @Daimona - is this something you still want to publish on the tech blog?

In T366354#9950584, @Ladsgroup wrote:

I wish we could use linktarget ids instead but given their complexity and the fact that page title won't be repeated much I think it's fine for now. It's good to go.

In T366765#9951014, @gonyeahialam wrote:

In T366765#9950520, @Daimona wrote:

In T366765#9950264, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@Daimona What do you mean by third parties

MediaWiki sites that are not hosted by the WMF (e.g., Fandom).

Are they going to be using our tool?

In T366765#9950264, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@Daimona What do you mean by third parties

Discussed today at eng+design. A few ideas/thoughts:

• Maybe we should limit the number of wikis organizers can enter, at least for the MVP version. This would make it easier to display them.
• What to do with events that do not specify any wikis? And what about events that target all wikis (e.g., global campaigns)? For example, show a radio in the form like the following:

Is this event targeting specific wikis?
◯ No
◯ All wikis
◯ Specific wikis

In T362702#9948279, @dcausse wrote:

Seems like that recently https://packages.sury.org/php/dists/buster/ is now returning a 403

In T368821#9948211, @matmarex wrote:

The problem being, that escaping might actually be preventing XSSs vulnerabilities somewhere. And I don't think we have a good way of knowing that. Auditing all callers seems quite hard.

This would only happen if someone used $status->getMessage()->text() / ->plain(), or $status->getWikiText(), and output it as if it was HTML, right?

In T369033#9945051, @gonyeahialam wrote:

Given that an organizer opens Special:InvitationList (with no list ID),
Then they should be redirected to Special:MyInvitationLists

In T364802#9945368, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@ifried This is tied to one of the high priority usability test tasks T368410, should this still be tackled separately?

@ifried @gonyeahialam do you have any ideas for these two messages? For comparison, here's what we're doing in Special:EventDetails:

Also, @gonyeahialam just to confirm: from a user's perspective, what happens after they submit the form, assuming the submission is valid? Should we send the user to Special:InvitationList and show the pending state (T364802)?

On second thought, this task really is blocked. The patch above is blocked on the creation of the schema (T366354). There's also one more patch I need to write which is blocked on both the creation of the schema, and the validation (T365629).

Resolving this, and eagerly awaiting to learn how I managed to screw something up in some new fun way.

@ifried One more question. I assume we want to also display an error if the invitation list name is empty, or it contains only spaces. I wrote the following message for this:

In T368830#9939471, @matmarex wrote:

This came up in the past in the context of on-wiki message overrides adding not just lists, but also tables and stuff.

• T230229: With two messages in Abusefilter errorbox, second box is indented
• T303060: Status::getWikiText should not be used for EditFilterMergedContentHook failures

In T368821#9939464, @matmarex wrote:

Maybe that means that nothing important relies on it, and it could be changed?

I think we're not too far away. Adding the constructor is maybe a small price we can pay. The one thing I would like for phan to do is to better handle the union type when the template type isn't specified (i.e., just Status instead of Status<Something>). Like resolving the templated type to mixed (or equivalent polymorphic type). This would let us drop the |mixed and get all the benefits when using the full Status<T> syntax, while retaining the existing behaviour for plain Status. The problem is, I doubt that's going to happen given the state of upstream.

Is this a fresh bug report? I'm unable to reproduce this, see screenshots below.

In T365629#9936537, @ifried wrote:

• Language corrected to present tense. Thanks for the catch!
• Yes, it should be "article" if there is only article.

In T357782#9934597, @kostajh wrote:

I am not sure if AbuseFilter makes sense for this use case

Also wondering about

In T365629#9919233, @ifried wrote:

I have updated the AC to have just one error message for all types of invalid article titles, and we will include the list of articles below. This way, we have a more simplified implementation that does not require logic for specific types of title errors, while still giving the user helpful information on which articles have errors in the titles.

Classic PEBKAC -- the host was changed as part of T345566. Docs updated.