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. ST47 Talk 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
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 :) Mart inp23 13:24, 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:
Maybe I've just misinterpreted it... -- Mart inp23 15:20, 6 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. Mart inp23 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
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. ST47 Talk 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
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 :) Mart inp23 13:24, 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:
Maybe I've just misinterpreted it... -- Mart inp23 15:20, 6 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. Mart inp23 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply