The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

JJMC89 bot 20[edit]

Operator: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:29, Tuesday, September 8, 2020 (UTC)

Function overview: SVG validation

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: After approval

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 80#Checking Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 30,000

Namespace(s): File

Exclusion compliant: Yes

Function details: Validate SVGs using the W3C Nu validator and add/update ((valid SVG)) or ((invalid SVG|number of errors)) based on the result.

Discussion[edit]

This task goes beyond the inital request to validate a single category and validates all SVGs. After the initial run through all SVGs, it will just check any (re)uploads daily. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a nice task. Question about "add/update ((invalid SVG|number of errors))". That template is designed for http://validator.w3.org, at BOTREQ you stated you're using /nu/ which gives a different number of errors. Eg for the example at BOTREQ, am I correct in thinking your bot would add "4" errors in the template, but the link would go to the other validator which would show 60 errors? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If approved, I will update the link in the template to point to the Nu validator. Not all of the numbers would be different between the validators. It should just be smaller for cases where the Nu validator 1) finds a bad part of the tree and suppresses further errors from that subtree instead of reporting all of them or 2) ignores a subtree (RDF). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good – LGTM for trial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Category