The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Approved for trial (15 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Very straight forward, report back after running if there were any issues or complaints. — xaosfluxTalk 00:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@APerson: It would be nice if the bot would check whether the page is already archived (on a certain week) or not, so it could avoid double archiving. (like there) Also if the bot follows Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Goings-on, than it should archive at 00:00:01 and not more than 2&1/2 hours later. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most recent run has completed without errors; the bot was 3 minutes late due to some MediaWiki-enforced timeouts that I only saw later in the logs. APerson (talk!) 00:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as Trial complete. --slakr\ talk / 03:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slakr, yes, I fixed it. The cron configuration was a bit screwy, which resulted in the task being run quite late. As you can see from the last two runs, it's been doing quite fine. APerson (talk!) 02:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Juuust in case. I think 14 days (on something that gets archived only twice during that period) was probably a little short. This should hopefully give a better sample, though I don't foresee any major issues if everything's fixed. =) --slakr\ talk / 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should post an explanation on here about why the most recent run was a bit late: everything went well (the cron job successfully found the file, which is an improvement over last time) except I forgot to chmod +x the actual shell file (which we're using for the first time this week). Anyway, everything should be working perfectly next time. APerson (talk!) 03:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@APerson: For some reason the bot didn't archive the page today at all. Any idea, why? ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the bot worked perfectly last week, I have no idea. I haven't looked at the logs yet, because I'm away from a computer that can SSH at the moment. I'll be back with an answer tomorrow. I suspect there was something funny going on with login sessions on tools, but I have no idea. APerson (talk!) 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, I just confirmed that the fault was with the login session, not with the bot's code. I've logged it in again; it should be working fine for next week. Interestingly enough, task 5 also encountered some screwiness with login sessions, but there it was confirmed that login sessions were an entirely one-time issue. I hope that's also the case here. APerson (talk!) 02:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, I haven't fixed the login problem yet, but I'll start manually logging in until I can see why my session is disappearing. APerson (talk!) 15:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slakr, I think they have been addressed. For the most part, whenever there's been a problem with login sessions, I can point to some sort of maintenance work on the servers. Needless to say, the bot's code doesn't contain any login-related bugs. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 02:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@APerson: The bot made the same mistake the last two time when in "re-started" the page. It added the FPs from the previous week back to the page. (1 & 2.) Regards, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Figured out why. In the past, the format was always DD MMM, but now that you're using 4 letters for the month, the bot isn't happy. I just fixed it. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you fix the month bug for all lengths, or just set it to assume 4? sneaky 3 letters months will stealthily hide out for a year :D — xaosfluxTalk 11:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} I think this is good to go, as this is a low volume task just wanted to check in with you if there are any other outstanding issues or feedback we've missed? — xaosfluxTalk 15:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Task approved. — xaosfluxTalk 04:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[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 WT:BRFA.
Approved.
Trial complete. --slakr\ talk / 03:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Juuust in case. I think 14 days (on something that gets archived only twice during that period) was probably a little short. This should hopefully give a better sample, though I don't foresee any major issues if everything's fixed. =) --slakr\ talk / 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
APerson (talk!) 02:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux Talk 04:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]