In T15526#16806, @aklapper wrote:

Which exact page(s) is this ticket about?

@20after4 Thanks for the response. Integration with search is something I overlooked, but you're right; tasks can naturally come from questions, and questions can naturally come from tasks. Their joint discoverability and interplay is a fertile soil for education and development. As volunteers, our role is kind of limited in many cases to being passive recipients of what is decided in WMF internal communications. Having public discussions of components could add more dynamism to the process.

I think ponder is sort of a minimal viable product state currently. It lacks some features like putting questions on workboards and there just aren't many
(or any?) integrations with the rest of Phorge. That wouldn't take much effort to improve it, most likely.

But this is the exact reason I started to consider Ponder in the first place. All previous attempts implied fragmentation, while Ponder is integrated in the system people already use (Phabricator), both developers and volunteers, and in numbers. I've explained in more details how I see the current situation at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SDeckelmann-WMF#How_volunteer_developer_support_could_be_improved_in_Wikimedia. Please share your view if you'd like. You can also join the discussion in the English Wikimedia Discord I started here.

Which exact page(s) is this ticket about?

In D25080#16551, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

Eeeh but in that way it's 84 and 87 chars long.

Note that $xaction->getOldValue() in https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/src/applications/people/xaction/PhabricatorUserUsernameTransaction.php$62 seems to always return null. It does not provide the old/current username, while generateOldValue() actually does.

Screenshot before (M17) and after (M18) applying D25600:

Yeah, that might help (like specifically in the case of the Clone dialog) even though it wouldn't help with dialogs containing writable inputs. (E.g. on the repository page, click Flag For Later instead and press Shift+Tab and Escape.) A better fix would lie at https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/webroot/rsrc/externals/javelin/lib/Workflow.js$413 where either the getSpecialKey would need improvement itself to return true for these non-modifying keys, or it would need to be amended with a custom check in that regard. However, I don't know where that function comes from.

Probably something here should be expanded to check if the form contains at least a visible input without read-only

Thanks, created as T15788

You are now in the family of Trusted Contributors 🎇

Thanks again avivey. I liked the idea of using applyExternalEffects(). I have not found a way to do it efficiently, without introducing another static method.

(Credit to bekay indeed)

Nice :) Thanks

Bonus point: maybe instead of "#123" we can use "#L123" since both GitLab and GitHub use that (and that's not a stupid specification). Just because we can.

If we find 10 minutes, let's test this on every provider, as last time it gave us a little surprise on one of them

You are right of course!

Yeah, there are some malformed URLs we should tackle for sure.