9

I was browsing MSE about review audits, etc., and came upon this question. It had a link to this suggested edit review audit, but instead of showing "Review audit completed at {date}" or "failed", it simply shows an error message (HTTP status code 500 from the console):

screenshot of the error occurring

I'm also sure I chanced upon one on Ask Ubuntu some time ago. Can we fix that?

14
  • 4
    I had this too yesterday. I tried to track it down, followed the trail which dead-ended in a link to an "orphan wiki" - which was blank. I've no clue what that meant at all. It's here. Jul 22 at 23:32
  • Ah, found the edit history. Jul 23 at 1:52
  • 1
    also reported on MSO (just to link the two): meta.stackoverflow.com/q/409250/11407695 Jul 31 at 13:28
  • 1
    status-completed It works now.
    – Ollie
    Sep 26 at 14:43
  • Should it not be marked as such and not closed as "no repro", folks? Because it is not like it never happened Sep 27 at 18:39
  • @OlegValter The closure reason literally says " Changes to the system or to the circumstances affecting the asker have rendered it obsolete. " - I fail to see how it's not correct.
    – Nick
    Sep 27 at 20:41
  • 2
    @Nick well... should we ditch the status-completed then? Because by definition a bug fixed is a bug that is no longer reproducible Sep 27 at 20:42
  • status-completed isn't just for bug reports though?
    – Nick
    Sep 27 at 20:43
  • 1
    May I inquire what are these 7300 questions about then? :) Sep 27 at 20:44
  • @OlegValter Well if you can give a valid reason for why the closure reason is wrong and not just different I might agree
    – Nick
    Sep 27 at 20:44
  • 1
    @Nick sure, but I won't ever be as eloquent about it as this Glorfindel's answer on "When to close a bug report as no longer reproducible?" Sep 27 at 20:51
  • 1
    Perhaps you could decide, @Glorfindel? Reopen and tag appropriately, or leave it how it is? (I'm ambivalent in this case, BTW)
    – Ollie
    Sep 27 at 21:46
  • 1
    @OlegValter No need to be eloquent, just see this bit: "The close reason is for cases where it might have been solved accidentally, and is actually closer to [status-norepro]" So yeah, reopening is fine with me. This was very likely not an accident.
    – Ollie
    Sep 27 at 22:22
  • 1
    @Ollie yeah, I am always for having an official response from staff rather than a closure - without it, who knows whether it is dormant in the source code and will bite at the worst possible time? Having a staff answer (if they ever find it, though) at least leaves a paper trail Sep 27 at 22:26