In T381361#10374562, @Bugreporter2 wrote:

It's annoying when a minor error in a string throws a big red message that screams, "there's an error!!!"

In T378381#10364416, @Izno wrote:

Algebraic data type.

I've added a couple Z20289s in there as well to illustrate what I think the problem is.

In T380828#10360469, @ecarg wrote:

Adding here before I forget, this is still evident today in Logstash

I've managed to reproduce this! https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z20449

https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Z20349?uselang=en&diff=prev&oldid=140838
This is the change that I'm pretty confident added it. I was adding debugs and was getting this same error. I assumed it was either my or the (very very newly added) type converters fault. Perhaps an issue with how Debug handles JSON objects?

In T380559#10354105, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Why do you think this should work? https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/fr/Z20000 or https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/pa/Z20000 work as planned.

In T380684#10354131, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

That is an ugly error that says, roughly, "your code is bad and was killed". We could clean up the error a little, perhaps.

In T374318#10162134, @DVrandecic wrote:

I wonder if we can raise that ban again? I think the crawler in combination with T374241 was causing the site instability issue. I would suggest that we de-ban the bot, and see if it causes issues again, because I don't think that the crawling itself would cause the issues described here.

In T379873#10341096, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

The given example is no longer showing, but we should investigate this, as it should get purged as part of the deletion code.

Weird things also happen with the Lexeme/Item selector elsewhere on Wikifunctions.

In T377908#10341306, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

In T377908#10333489, @Feeglgeef wrote:

In T377908#10322924, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

To meet the "It will also provide a brief description of how to add the missing elements, or a pointer to that info." criterion, do we want to add a bit of blurb saying that you can add a label by clicking to the Object, and editing it?

This is necessary if it's put into a high visibility spot like the main page to not decrease newcomer retention from confusion. It's also worth noting that the current UX to add a language to an existing object is really confusing and not intuitive, so it's worth explaining it.

No, this is talking about the on-page help, not the context for where people link it from. We agreed in the team that this will be for follow-up later.

This could be done by changing Z20K1 from a Z8 to a Z881 of Z8s

We currently have https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:FAQ#Contributing, we should put everything there.

In T377908#10322924, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

To meet the "It will also provide a brief description of how to add the missing elements, or a pointer to that info." criterion, do we want to add a bit of blurb saying that you can add a label by clicking to the Object, and editing it?

This page should also have implementations that pass a certain percentage of tests.

In T373257#10097534, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Syntax was planned as something like {{#function:Z801|Hello}} or {{#function:Z12345|5|mi|km}} or {{#function:Z12345|Q12345|{{{CURRENTDATE}}}}} or even {{#function:Z12345|Q12345|{{#function:Z801|Hello}}}}, with (generally implicit) named parameters of parselang and renderlang, so {{#function:Z801|Hello|parselang=en|renderlang=en}} etc..

Wouldn't arguments be opaque to Parsoid?

The main issue in this for me is the inconsistency between the Function page and the Test page, which is one of the root causes of this issue. Wikilamdba system *should* remove it, but we should also focus on the inconsistency issue.

It appears to be throwing a Z503 when the test is run.

I am personally am in favor of having both composition validation and dropdown options but anything to validate would be much much better than what we have now.

Yeah, this is an issue in the regular code editor.

Are they physically prevented from doing that? I do agree that machines can fail and most things can be left to humans, but, 2 of the exact same thing being created at the exact same time does not make sense. What I was saying about the banner is that if we find that an object has a label that is the same as another object. If they are different but have the same label, we show an error message. If they are the exact same and have the exact same label, we allow the user edit through and delete the duplicate object.

I was thinking that if the warning banner would be displayed, the two conflicting objects are checked, and, if they are exactly the same, we delete one of them.

Note that the original issue is not the one being created in the steps to recreate, but a bug that is created because of the original bug. Ideally, both of these should be fixed.