Board Thread:Script Suggestions/@comment-1158325-20160320103956/@comment-24473195-20160331151559

SpikeToronto wrote:

DaNASCAT wrote: Hey there,

Catching up on this thread. For clarity, we have no issue approving a replacement as long as each edit to the replacement goes through JS Review. So if you were to build a script that relied on edits in, say, the Template namespace to change how/what the script does, then we would deny it. If any changes to psuedoGadgets scripts are in the MediaWiki namespace with .JS page endings, it will be fine.

Oh. You mean like Gadgets?

All scripts under gadgets are equally subject to JSReview since they are housed "… in the MediaWiki namespace with .JS page endings …"Gee, seems to me like that condition is already satisfied … by Gadgets!

You're missing the point. Gadgets needs to place messages in the mediawiki namespace to help configure the specific scripts. It also allows someone to add arbitrary dependencies to JS scripts that are not whitelisted. This causes a problem because while new .js files are reviewed, their equivalent gadget definition page isn't. So some admin can change it to whatever they like.

Since old JS files were automatically pre-approved wikia Staff would have to review all gadgets in the 127 wikis to really make sure that going forward new scripts are really secure. That's something that incurs high costs and very few benefits considering the extremely low usage.