Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/IcalaniseBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

IcalaniseBot

Operator: Icalanise (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Move values from the long_peri to arg_peri field of {{Planetbox orbit}}. This is desirable since the parameter in question (ω) is strictly the argument of periastron, not the longitude.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function Details: Full details available at User:IcalaniseBot/LongPeriFix, including rationale, evidence of support, and lists of diffs created by running tests on my local machine to verify the code is doing what I expect it to be doing.

Discussion

Is this a one-time fix, or regular work?

It's a one-time fix. I already edited the list of properties in the template documentation to remove the long_peri field from the list of properties, so there shouldn't be too much of a problem with subsequent articles. Icalanise (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many edits (total) is the bot supposed to be making?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of articles which transclude the {{Planetbox orbit}} template (which the bot uses to search through the articles) is currently 302, however not all of these will be affected: when I did a trial non-editing run of the scan/change code (which I used to produce the diff list), 47 articles were unaffected (4 had a populated arg_peri field, 43 did not need to be edited - see the "no diff list"). Icalanise (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify further, these are example lists: the bot operates on the list of pages in the main namespace which transclude the {{Planetbox orbit}} template and decides whether to change the article based on the content it finds when it downloads the article. It does not run off the pre-made lists on the bot's user subpages. Icalanise (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Could I have a trial period? I can easily reduce the time between bot edits if need be. Icalanise (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks I'm going to start the trial run now. Icalanise (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I seem to have a Unicode issue somewhere in the code (the two test edits that were performed mangled non-ASCII characters, I have thus reverted the edits in question), so I aborted the test run. I'm going to carry out a few more limited trial programs in the bot's userspace before trying again. Sorry. Icalanise (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've fixed the Unicode issue -- see this diff [1] for a test run in userspace for evidence. Icalanise (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} My first trial run exhibited an issue with Unicode characters and I therefore aborted it. However the diffs created on my local machine do not exhibit problems (the Unicode issue only came up in the POST request action=edit), so I believe the bot is now capable of performing the task correctly. I would like to apply for a new trial run with the debugged bot. Icalanise (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. BJ^Talk 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've completed the trial run of 50 edits. Having examined all of the diffs, there appear to be no problems. Icalanise (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Icalanise (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. BJ^Talk 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.