@dmaza I think T197117 is the next task in the graph, but if you can complete this one before it's subtasks than go for it, but I think we figured that wouldn't be possible for some reason? perhaps the log only tracks when they are saved?

@dbarratt you are right.. I'll start on T197117 first.

• Pagenames in log entries will not be linked. We will decide in T202781: Determine then implement the proper way to log partial blocks

• Unblocks says the block was removed

• Block modifications do not need to show a diff

Just a note to clarify: the acceptance criteria listed in the description of this task are for the MVP release of Partial Blocks. We plan to extend the limit from 10 pages (T202776: Determine then implement page limit for partial blocks) which will affect log length, which will be determined in T202781: Determine then implement the proper way to log partial blocks. We hope to decide this during the Beta release.

@TBolliger, see below the sample messages for re-block and unblock

03:57, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Test1 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 01:19, 25 September 2018 (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Extending block length) (unblock | change block)
--
04:45, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Test1 (talk | contribs) (Wrong user name. Removing block)

I don't think unblock should change since there is no need to list any restrictions but the re-block message could. How does this sounds?

03:57, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Test1 (talk | contribs) preventing edits on the page(s) Foobar with an expiration time of 01:19, 25 September 2018 (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page, partial block) (Extending block length) (unblock | change block)

We also allow for partial blocks without any page/namespace specified (E.g. prevent from sending email). I'm not sure how the log message should look like in those scenarios where it is no longer an editing block

In T197108#4587304, @dmaza wrote:

@TBolliger, see below the sample messages for re-block and unblock

03:57, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Test1 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 01:19, 25 September 2018 (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Extending block length) (unblock | change block)
--
04:45, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Test1 (talk | contribs) (Wrong user name. Removing block)

I don't think unblock should change since there is no need to list any restrictions but the re-block message could. How does this sounds?

03:57, 10 September 2018 Admin (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Test1 (talk | contribs) preventing edits on the page(s) Foobar with an expiration time of 01:19, 25 September 2018 (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page, partial block) (Extending block length) (unblock | change block)

I agree that the unblock message does not need to be updated. Your proposed modified block log entry looks great! Go with it.

We also allow for partial blocks without any page/namespace specified (E.g. prevent from sending email). I'm not sure how the log message should look like in those scenarios where it is no longer an editing block

Good catch. Do we need to fix this in this task, or in a future task?

With the exception of the options we will add soon (upload, move page, + create page) these are already noted in the parenthesis part of the block log. We don't need to list them twice, so what about something along the lines of:

TIMESTAMP Admin-who-blocked (t|c|b) blocked BadApples (t|c) from non-editing actions with an expiration time of N (parameters) (reason) (unblock | change block)

Good catch. Do we need to fix this in this task, or in a future task?

With the exception of the options we will add soon (upload, move page, + create page) these are already noted in the parenthesis part of the block log. We don't need to list them twice, so what about something along the lines of:

TIMESTAMP Admin-who-blocked (t|c|b) blocked BadApples (t|c) from non-editing actions with an expiration time of N (parameters) (reason) (unblock | change block)

We should probably address it as part of this task. That message looks good to me.

What do you think about this one for re-blocks with no restrictions?

TIMESTAMP Admin-who-blocked (t|c|b) changed block settings for BadApples (t|c) for non-editing actions with an expiration time of N (parameters) (reason) (unblock | change block)

In T197108#4595564, @dmaza wrote:

What do you think about this one for re-blocks with no restrictions?

TIMESTAMP Admin-who-blocked (t|c|b) changed block settings for BadApples (t|c) for non-editing actions with an expiration time of N (parameters) (reason) (unblock | change block)

👍

Change 461278 had a related patch set uploaded (by Dmaza; owner: Dmaza):
[mediawiki/core@master] [WIP] - Add partial block details to block-log entries.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/461278

Change 461278 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/core@master] Add partial block details to block-log entries.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/461278