Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AccReqBot2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

AccReqBot2

Operator: ST47Talk

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Clone of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AccReqBot

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

Edit rate requested: 10 edits per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: Same as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AccReqBot, but both bots will be modified to use a lockfile, to prevent both from editing at the same time. The reason we need a second bot is that, at times, the first will crash. This will prevent that. ST47Talk 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

No problem with having a backup, but wouldn't it be better hosted by someone elsewhere from the toolserver, so that the bot can still run when it goes down? If you wish, I can host a copy on a linux box here :) Martinp23 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a lock file would be impossbile then - perhaps a lock page on WP? Martinp23 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Extranet has offered to host it. I will look into putting a lock page on WP, once I finish revamping the code. ST47Talk 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - so I've seen, but from Extranet's comments, it seems that (s)he wishes to host it on the toolserver, and indeed this would appear to be the case, with Extranet looking for something to run off his/her toolserver account since the BirthdayBot BRFA was rejected. Martinp23 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just thought of something strange here - you say that the bot sometimes crashes, hence a backup is needed, but you also say that a lockfile will be used. By this logic (correct me if I'm wrong), the backup will never run because:

AccReqBot starts running, writes to lock file to indicate lock
AccReqBot crashes
AccReqBot2 (presumably on a cronjob) tries to start up, but is prevented by the lockfile

Maybe I've just misinterpreted it... --Martinp23 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use "lockfile" in the loosest possible sense of the word. It edits the wiki "Bot1 busy". Bot2 sees that, waits 60 seconds, and tries again. If it's still there, it waits again, up to 3 times. If, for 3 minutes, it's still there, we assume a failure, the bot posts "Bot2 busy", and does its stuff. When done, it blanks the page and waits the appropriate time period. ST47Talk 16:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently requesting a toolserver account, and hopefully can get one if by the time the bot approval is accepted/declined. Extranet ^talk 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no point in running a backup on the same system as the main program - it becomes less of a backup an more of a glorified error handler! Martinp23 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I've just finished rewriting the code, so I can send it out. Extranet: The bot should only work on linux, if you have linux, I'd rather you put it there, or we can try it on windows? ST47Talk 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first bot encountered an error yesterday and thats why we need another one. I'm keen on it and don't really see a problem about running another one along side it. If the toolserver goes down, that's not really out fault, is it? Extranet ^talk 07:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did, which resulted in a complete loss of service for almost 24 hours. I'd like this to go forward, even if it to toolserv, more to backup the other bot than to back up toolserv. ST47Talk 10:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if this was to be accepted, I would need a bit of a push on the toolserver request to get it up ASAP. Extranet ^talk 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I'm still not seeing the need for a backup on the same system. We can presume that ST47 has fixed the error which caused the bot to stop earlier, so that shouldn't happen again. If it does happen repeatedly, then there is no reason for ST47 to need another account to run a backup on - just have (if not already) the bot on a cronjob, so the script will be able to restart even if it has crashed earlier. If there's a problem with the bot repeatedly erroring, then better error handling is needed - not more equally susceptible backups. To re-iterate: the bot has, until now, been extremely reliable (except when blocked, or toolserver down), so there is no reason to have another copy on the same server. Extranet: if you are looking for a bot for the sake of running one, please think carefully about the responsibility involved, and take a look at Wikipedia:BOTREQ. I'll look at your Wikipedia:AWB request now, and see if it is valid. Martinp23 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been approved to use AWB. Can I suggest that you get your feet wet working on items at Wikipedia:SUBST in manual mode, and then apply for a similar task in future. Thanks, Martinp23 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB looks a bit too hard to use so I will just have to find another non-admin related job to do around here... Extranet ^talk 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to second Martin, having backups on the same system is not quite the goal of a backup. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just give it a try to see if it does work good alongside the other copy of the bot? That way we can test for errors in the system and to see if it does reduce the short backlog? And Martin, please don't presume that I don't know the responsibility involved with a bot. I have run a bot before on Wikipedia. Extranet ^talk 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not useful to host it on toolserver though, I know some folks that might be able to host a 2nd bot, and it not be dependent on toolserver. Do you mind if I ask them. (I can ask two other people if they might be able to run extra copies). I don't see a need for a 2nd toolserver copy though. (the first bot should be able to run without errors, and only be down based on if toolserver is down... and if toolserver is down, then a second bot also hosted on toolserver makes no sense at all.). Let me see if I can't find an extra server to host this bot with. (though I will mention to the existing bot operator that they could add an entry to their crontab to make the "real" bot restart at toolserver startup. All you need to add is @reboot /path/to/bot/executable. If there is a need for a second bot to act as an error backup, then ST47 should be able to host it on his own toolserver account, as there is no need for a second login name. If the point of it is to make sure the bot is always up (like the AIV helperbots) then it needs to be on a seperate machine as to what the original copy is. The 3 AIV helperbots are not all on toolserver, but instead spread about 3 different machines. Cheers —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Extranet: If a short backlog is developing, then that only needs to tell us that the bot isn't running as frequently as it needs to - a problem easily rectified by ST47 if he adjusts crontab. If a backup *is* needed, then my offer of a linux box remains open. As it is, I see no reason for the billions of AIV helperbot clones we seem to have, but if they all find work, then there's no problem. Martinp23 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extranet: Do you believe we need a backup? Are you looking for something to do? If the former, then let me do some tests to see why the bot is crashing. If the latter, then I would advise you that AWB is easy to learn and use, and there are plenty of people who would be willing to help you out. ST47Talk 12:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. ST47Talk 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.