In T366672#9871516, @Jdlrobson wrote:

Looks like this requires a fix in the Echo repo so assuming the Growth team will work on this. let me know if that's not the case!

CommunityConfiguration controls do not provide a character counter and as other engineers have surfaced in the past (@moriel/110804974371434815), there are many edge cases. Can we exclude the visual character count from the scope of this task? And probably file a task upstream if we find this feature relevant. Setting a maximum value for the field is already possible in CommunityConfiguration and although the text won't be capped in the form input, there will be a validation error showing for the field and (only in English) specifying "Maximum length for this field is XX". cc @KStoller-WMF

In CommunityConfiguration we used an internal "MediaWiki page title" defintion which uses the page title control targeting pages in the same wiki. No URL validation happens since the page is stored using its title (DB key) in plain text, eg: Main_Page. I think this may be enough for an mvp but maybe we want to support external links as well in the future which would benefit from some URL validation. Can we confirm we are only targeting wiki pages on this task? cc @KStoller-WMF

In T361324#9877929, @KStoller-WMF wrote:

We should create a task for #7 & 8. I'll create them tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.

Taking the same width as the vertical parent is tricky to achieve because of the "flex" nature and unclear width of the fields width which is pending clarifications in T361324#9867903. Meanwhile I've left the last field on even number of fields in an item to occupy the full parent width.

In T361324#9786213, @JFernandez-WMF wrote:

@KStoller-WMF sorry, I just saw this ping here 🤦🏻‍♀️ This is indeed something that we can improve. We have received feedback previously on a usage of 512 max width for fields being a better option. @Sgs curious if this is something we can try to see if it improves readability.

I like the approach of hiding the properties at the editor level an leaving the rest of logic as it is. One thing to note is that the approach works because of two constraints in our schemas: (1) no required support at any level (2) additionalProperties set to false on the root schema. Something to take in account in T360921 and if we decide to build something more robust in the future.

All beta wikis have now CC enabled and GE using it. Also the config is been migrated for all with the exception of nlwiki which has errored out with:

In T365726#9863113, @Urbanecm_WMF wrote:

@KStoller-WMF @Sgs @Michael What do you think of this approach? Do you (fore)see any risks/considerations that I missed in the comment above? Are there any other alternatives we should consider?

I have no strong objection pursuing the provider level approach with a hook at this stage of the project. I guess that implies creating a dedicated "Personalized praise" provider for GrowthExperiments. Just this one?

If it sounds good @Sgs, I'll close this task as resolved since the design proposal was already made. I am guessing we should create an Engineering task for this, let me know if you want me to take on that task.
Thank you!

Sure, filed as T366274.

As per the main goal of this task, a way to test we fixed generating used messages is to render the form using the uselang=qqx parameter in the URL and compare the form message keys in the screen with the ones requested via API (there can be several requests as the client requests messages in batches of 50). If I diff these I don't get extra messages. Can we consider this resolved @Etonkovidova ?

In T363477#9840548, @Etonkovidova wrote:

@Sgs - when testing Especial:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits and comparing to the figma design, I noticed two small issues (not sure if they are in the scope of this task):

(1) The message under Infobox template :"These templates are needed for the image suggestions newcomer task feature. Articles containing these templates will not be listed as image suggestion tasks." has a link for " the image suggestions " in the figma design. The current implementation doesn't indicate any links in that message:

figma design	eswiki beta

Indeed, that is a known limitation of all form messages (namely field labels and field help text). Filed as T366270.

(2) The label "List of excluded sections from the Add link task" doesn't have an associated text field (more comments on the labels in this comment on T360471).

Nice catch. I think this is a defect from T364717 that we need to take action. In CC1.0 this field used the "chips input" control and I find it quite appropriate.