Module talk:Data

Module:Data is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible module. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit.

@Jackmcbarn: I know you're not too active at the moment, but I have a request. Would it be possible to update the code so that it will fail gracefully (without script errors) if key1 does not exist in the data module? At the moment I have no way to see if a value is defined without causing the script error. Thanks and hope to see you back soon! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Done. Add |softfail= to the invocation you want this for. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's not working yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{#invoke:Data|Module:Data/List config|Q1234|c1|softfail=y}} -> Lua error in Module:Data at line 9: 'Module:Data/List config' is not a valid data page.

@MSGJ: I see. It's because table.concat doesn't respect metamethods. Fixed now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Jackmcbarn, thanks! Do we actually need two different ways to display the error, or could the softfail be used for all? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: I intend for softfail to mean "I know this might fail and I'm going to handle it if it does". If softfail were the default, it would be easy for a lookup to fail in a template where the author didn't expect it, but also in such a way that no tracking category gets added (e.g., inside the condition of a #if). The tracking category from a script error is "stickier", so it being the default means that any coding mistakes will for sure result in a categorization so we can find and fix them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks again! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to develop a version of this module which would read a JSON pages? Or do we have something that can do this already? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I attempted to modify this module but was unsuccessful. So I created a bespoke module at Module:Women in Green event which serves my immediate needs. If this ever gets implemented here, then that module could be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: I've decided to give this a crack in the sandbox. The module will attempt to load the page as if it was a module page by default, and if this doesn't work, it'll instead try to load it as a Json page. If neither of these works, it throws an error like current functionallity (yet worded to mean something a bit more specific for this case). I don't imagine this pcall logic will cause any overhead (and could even maybe be made smart by checking if the input is in the Module namespace before even bothering trying to do loadData). You can see a test of it here. Does this seem fine? Aidan9382 _(talk) 09:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aidan! Can you see why Module talk:Data/testcases is not working? To get this working in Module:Women in Green event I had to use tonumber to convert the 1 to a number. (I don't understand why because I used "1" in the JSON file, which should be a string.) It seems this module can only handle keys which are strings. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the JSON loader is probably automatically converting these to number keys for whatever reason. I've fixed it in this module by going for the numbered key if and only if it has a tonumber evaluation and the string key returns nil, which fixes your testcase. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan9382 I just realised that this code was never deployed. Would you mind checking that all looks good and I will copy it over? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current sandbox looks fine and the testcases seem to be working as intended, so it should be good to go. Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]