Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: MBS-5742
Type: Bug Bug
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Normal Normal
Assignee: Ian McEwen
Reporter: Nicolás Tamargo
Votes: 2
Watchers: 0

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
MusicBrainz Server

Editing a work without JS on will enter a silent remove ISWC edit

Created: 09/Jan/13 12:08 AM   Updated: 11/Feb/13 11:40 AM   Resolved: 11/Feb/13 11:40 AM
Component/s: Edit system
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2013-02-11

Issue Links:

 Description  « Hide

If a work has any ISWCs, and a user (or bot) with JS disabled edits anything in it, like the name, the system will also automatically enter an edit to remove all the ISWCs. I could understand (hate, but understand) if we decided not to allow users without JS to enter work edits at all, but in any case, if they can edit, this shouldn't happen.

Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Oliver Charles added a comment - 22/Jan/13 04:19 PM

Needs a decision - do we deny this page to work, or do we make the page work correctly?

nikki added a comment - 22/Jan/13 09:42 PM

I see several options:
a) Rewrite the entire page to be generated with JS so that the entire page is impossible to use without JS.
b) Make the template generate the HTML fields itself, instead of generating JS which generates the HTML fields.
c) Leave the page generation alone but change how the form submission works so that it can distinguish between missing ISWCs and removed ISWCs.

I know we're not trying to offer full non-JS support, but going out of our way to deliberately break non-JS support seems stupid, so I really don't like a). Both b) and c) seem fine to me.

Ian McEwen added a comment - 24/Jan/13 11:03 PM

Calling this a decision required is disrespectful to real decisions we need to make. I made it work correctly:

Oliver Charles added a comment - 25/Jan/13 12:07 AM

I'm fine with making this page work, but the lack of a guideline still stands, and will inevitably come up again in the future.

Ian McEwen added a comment - 25/Jan/13 12:22 AM

Fair enough. I'll add it back to the meeting topic then – my position, for the record, is basically reduced to "bots should be able to edit anything on MB" – so, javascript is fine for editor niceties like "when you aren't using a general-purpose programming language it's hard to add fields to a page" but not for basic rendering – unless there's an alternative interface.

So, the relationship editor is fine because everything that can be done there can be done other ways, if a bot wants to. The release editor may not be fine by my metric (not sure about tracklist editing automation, or the recordings tab), but that's only one of many problems with it. This page, pre-pull-37, isn't okay because loading the page without JS then submitting without making changes, changes things; post-pull-37, javascript is only used for the add/remove field functionality a script written in a general programming language won't need.