Revision as of 11:22, 17 January 2021 edit MSGJ (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 135,092 edits →Request: re, thanks ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:01, 17 January 2021 edit undo Jackmcbarn (talk \| contribs) 31,380 edits re Next edit →
Line 7: :::{{ping\|MSGJ}} I see. It's because <code>table.concat</code> doesn't respect metamethods. Fixed now. [[User:Jackmcbarn\|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn\|talk]]) 19:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC) ::::That's great [[User:Jackmcbarn\|Jackmcbarn]], thanks! Do we actually need two different ways to display the error, or could the softfail be used for all? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ\|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ\|talk]])</small> 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC) :::::{{ping\|MSGJ}} I intend for <code>softfail</code> to mean "I know this might fail and I'm going to handle it if it does". If softfail were the default, it would be easy for a lookup to fail in a template where the author didn't expect it, but also in such a way that no tracking category gets added (e.g., inside the condition of a #if). The tracking category from a script error is "stickier", so it being the default means that any coding mistakes will for sure result in a categorization so we can find and fix them. [[User:Jackmcbarn\|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn\|talk]]) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Module talk:Data: Difference between revisions