User talk:Voidious/RoboWiki To-Do

From Robowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please say when you noticed it. I feel like I'm talking to nothing.

  • Consider user Javascript / CSS
    • There is no security issue. Wikipedia has it. If you are worry about XSS, then I must say it is not possible to modified another user's css/js.
  • Twitter feedback / changes
  • SVG support
    • I don't think it cost CPU much.

» Nat | Talk » 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Say when I noticed it??

Javascript can still do some very bad / annoying things. And browsers have security vulnerabilities with Javascript sometimes (FireFox recently had one). We've had some horrible wikispam attacks since I've been here (on the old wiki), so I am very cautious on stuff like this. What benefit is there to offset the risk? Is this something other people want? If Wikipedia allows it, that does sway my decision, though.

--Voidious 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have suggested a few of them for several time already and I got really no response =)

As I say, you can't edit other users' javascript/css, nor they can edit yours. The user css/js only activated only when that user visit the site and login. I can't see any vulnerabilities. I don't know if other people want, but I really want it. » Nat | Talk » 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely misunderstood what this feature was. I thought it was to allow users to post more HTML and Javascript in the content of wiki pages! You're right, that's no security issue at all. --Voidious 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from old URL... I need to change my hosts file back =) Nice!

One thing I want to suggest: wikipedia:User:Cacycle/wikEd It is very nice wiki editor. But if you guys think simple is better. I don't know, I love it just because of syntax highlighting, I never use the tools come with it. » Nat | Talk » 11:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Math formulas via LaTeX now working: <math>x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}</math> . Cool! --Voidious 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


I see we have a lot of polls lately. I wonder if it will be easier if we have this extension installed? I don't think we will have more polls in short time, but when I finally have time to work with my challenge, at least 3 more polls will be open. » Nat | Talk » 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too... I'll check out the extension. Thanks! --Voidious 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm, interesting... though I'd be interested in a poll system if it supported a Condorcet method, which would handle cases of people not just preferring one candidate over all others... Actually, here's one mediawiki plugin, though it appears relatively unmaintained --Rednaxela 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Or if we don't care for wiki integration, we could use something like this for condorcet method polls --Rednaxela 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice website, but it would be bad of anyone can vote on it. Why don't we create this outself =) » Nat | Talk » 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, we could hack this to be more generic... :) --Rednaxela 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot Uploads

I just looked at the "Upload File" area that's used for uploading pictures... and just wondered... is there any reason we can't allow bots to be uploaded? Or would that create too much risk of stressing the server? --Rednaxela 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too much stress. After all, David originally intended to also use this server for his RoboRumble server / bot repository. But I'll run it by him first, anyway, and then see about setting that up. --Voidious 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I enabled uploading of .jar files (still limited to 2 megs), but unfortunately, silly MediaWiki won't let the first letter of the filenames remain lower case. =( --Voidious 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... well there is $wgCapitalLinks... but I'm not sure if that's a good idea to turn on just for that. --Rednaxela 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
That's would break the inline links, such as [[waves]] will produce waves etc. » Nat | Talk » 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nice find. Setting up redirects for the broken links actually wouldn't be too hard, since they'd shoot to the top of Special:Wantedpages. But if I can figure out another file upload solution that feels secure, that would probably be preferable. I've actually been looking into writing MediaWiki extensions, so maybe I can come up with something... --Voidious 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I'm working on some basic file uploading system that contacts the MediaWiki API for authentication. I'll speed it up if anyone want. » Nat | Talk » 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On this issue, while I must agree that we have Robocode Repository, it was so sllllllooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. I think we might just hack create a simple file upload solution and use MediaWiki authentication checking. » Nat | Talk » 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally what I like about the concept of wiki-based upload, or at least using MediaWiki authentication, is that it requires the same authentication to upload the bot, as it takes to add it to the participants list. --Rednaxela 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use RoboWiki authentication, but not standard wiki upload. Why not create a separate system, at or something like that. We could have it so that you register your top-level package with your wiki username, and then you can upload bot JARs that follow the standard naming format. If we wanted to get really fancy, we could have special case package names (e.g. everyone can upload in the wiki.* package). « AaronR « Talk « 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that sounds ideal. I'm not sure it needs to even be that sophisticated - if we just let wiki authenticated users upload any files to /bots and not overwrite existing files, that's probably sufficient. --Voidious 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well... I'd say it should at least also have a check on file size (no bots biger than 2MB or something), and free space (i.e. don't eat the final 100MB on the server ever)... --Rednaxela 23:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ranking Archive

Some comment: should be in separate name space, like ArchiveStats: --Nat Pavasant 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. =) --Voidious 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be done on the rumble server too... I have the table set up but was unsure when and how often (daily is probably too much, is monthly too little?). --Darkcanuck 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Wiki archives weekly, I think it is good rate. Nat Pavasant 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... I'd say that the ideal frequency would depend on how much activity is going on in the rumble. Perhaps... once for every time pairings become complete/stable? :) --Rednaxela 05:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd been thinking weekly, but monthly would probably be fine. Adaptive sounds cool, but may be a little too often, and also a headache to set up. You mention having a table setup: I presume you mean something more than just a static page then? That would be one advantage of the rumble server, though it also sounds like it could be a lot of extra space in the db. I kind of like the idea of having the content on the wiki, but that may also be my bias because I was looking forward to tinkering with wiki bots and the rumble query API some more. ;) --Voidious 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can do what my Robobot used to do. I have no time to investigate the issue with html entities yet =( --Nat Pavasant 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If it was monthly the space wouldn't be too bad -- the battles table is growing at over 1M records per month, so a few thousand extra for rankings would be a drop in the bucket (may need to start pruning the db soon). I'd probably put it in a cron and only archive when pairings are complete. UI would involve a bit of work too. But if you want to do a monthly/weekly/daily API slurp to the wiki, that's fine too -- I probably won't get to this for awhile (esp. the UI), have a list of other things for the server first.
Hmmm, rereading your message I saw "static page" -- that's another option, could just wget the page and keep a copy on the server, maybe extracting just the table and wrap a bit of UI around it. --Darkcanuck 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is pretty much ready to go. The sample format is at RumbleArchives:Page format and feedback is welcome. Here's how the script works:

  • For each rumble, fetch the rankings (by API). If all bots have the same # of pairings, construct the rankings table and post a new page on the wiki in the RumbleArchives namespace.
  • If any of the rumbles didn't have complete pairings, wait an hour and check those again. Repeat until all rumbles have been archived.
  • I'm thinking I'll put this on a weekly cron, maybe Sunday night / Monday morning. That's my best guess at a low activity time, but honestly I don't know when is best in that respect.
  • The Team Rumble seems not to have complete pairings ever. Not sure if I should skip it or just ignore that check for Team Rumble?

--Voidious 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can check if participant had changed since last time you archive, it would be good. You can check the modified date of participant url. IIRC if can be check from API, but not sure. It sounds complicated, though. --Nat Pavasant 02:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

SVG File

Your concern to SVG is high-CPU, right? I am not sure, but from the documentation it seems that each thumbnail is generated only once for each use. Also, I don't think this could be more CPU-intensive than the TeX support. --Nat Pavasant 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no threads on this page yet.