Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- provenance:programming:interaction [2026/08/27 12:49] – Fix the silent render truncation: a literal <WRAP todo> written inside ''..'' in a table cell opened a real WRAP div that was never closed, swallowing everything after it. ''..'' is monospace, not nowiki. Escape every literal plugin tag with %%. Authored karel.kubicek.claude
+++ provenance:programming:interaction [2026/08/27 12:52] (current) – Name the two deferred follow-ups by their drain item keys. Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude
@@ Line 252: / Line 252: @@
 | ''design_mobile_and_app_measurement.txt'' / ''report_mobile-output.txt'' | identical (both fail — pre-existing, unrelated) |
 | ''design_longitudinal.txt'' / ''report_longitudinal-output.txt'' | **improved**: unaccounted 24 → 20, and three four-part Chromium versions (''113.0.5672.0'', ''152.0.7977.54'', ''154.0.8026.0'') now reported as version identifiers instead of as digit fragments. That pair was already failing before the change and still fails |
+===== The page truncated itself, silently, and the guard said OK =====
+Worth a section rather than a footnote, because it is a failure mode with no error message anywhere and a guard that actively certified it.
+**Symptom.** After a routine save, the rendered page simply stopped mid-table. The //Related// and //References// sections were not in the HTML at all — no purple warning, no PHP notice, no truncated response; DokuWiki emitted a complete page that happened to contain only part of the content. The only way to notice is to count what rendered against what you wrote.
+**What it was not.** Two hours of bisecting on ''playground:playground'' ruled out: total size (a neighbouring provenance page renders 143 KB), the biggest embedded output block (removing 27 KB changed nothing), the review section (removing 16 KB changed nothing), the specific table cell it stopped at (rewriting it moved nothing), and every section on its own (all 13 rendered fine in isolation). Cumulative prefixes gave the decisive clue by being **non-monotone** — the first 11 KB failed while the first 34 KB passed — which cannot happen under any size or complexity budget, and can only happen if something is left **open** and something later closes it.
+**What it was.** One table cell in the run table at the top of the page:
+<code>
+| Page before | a 2,411-byte stub: a ''&lt;WRAP todo&gt;'' box, three bullet topics, ... |
+</code>
+(with real angle brackets, of course — they are escaped here so this page does not reproduce the bug while describing it.)
+''%%''%%…''%%''%%'' is **monospace, not nowiki.** It changes how the text looks and does nothing whatever to stop the wrap plugin. That literal opened a real, never-closed ''%%<div>%%'', and everything after it vanished. Replacing the quotes with ''%%%%%%…%%%%%%'' fixed it on the next save, with nothing else changed.
+**The guard was worse than useless.** ''scripts/check_wrap.mjs'' masked ''%%''%%…''%%''%%'' before counting tags — on the assumption that a tag written in inline code is a mention — and did **not** mask ''%%%%%%…%%%%%%''. That is backwards on both counts: it blinded the guard to the one construct that fires, and it would have raised a false alarm on the one that does not. It reported ''OK'' on the broken page every time it was run.
+Fixed on 2026-08-27: mask ''%%<nowiki>%%'' and ''%%%%%%…%%%%%%'' only, and flag a plugin tag inside ''%%''%%…''%%''%%'' as an error in its own right, with the reason in the message. Re-run across every page source in the workdir it now reports **71 instances**, including three pages whose %%<WRAP>%% counts are unbalanced. Two of those were checked live and still render to the end, so this is a lead for whoever owns those pages rather than an emergency — but the class of defect is real and was previously invisible. Filed as the ''wrap-escape sweep'' item in ''/workspace/drain/work.db'' rather than fixed here, because editing ten other people's pages is outside this item's scope.
 ===== What could not be established =====
@@ Line 260: / Line 282: @@
   * **How much an LLM agent changes a measurement.** Five papers use one as the browsing instrument; none reports a same-site-list comparison against a scripted crawl. This is on the page as an open question.
   * **Whether ''subpagesPerSite'' means the same thing across papers.** "10 subpages" could be 10 attempted, 10 successfully loaded, or 10 distinct URLs. Nothing in the schema distinguishes them and few papers say. The page reports the distribution and does not compute a mean.
-  * **''design:sampling'' now disagrees with this page and was not updated.** It publishes its own depth figures — 24.8% landing-only of 680 papers, "15.0% state how many subpages" — against this page's 37.2% of 417 and 12.1% of 857. The populations are different and each page states its own, but nothing reconciles them for a reader who reads both. Its Hispar box, checked 2026-08-12, says there is "no maintained equivalent … no tooling to address it", which is now stale against this page's HTTP Archive secondary-page paragraph. **Deferred:** editing that page is outside this item's scope. The change it needs is one sentence pointing here.
+  * **''design:sampling'' now disagrees with this page and was not updated.** It publishes its own depth figures — 24.8% landing-only of 680 papers, "15.0% state how many subpages" — against this page's 37.2% of 417 and 12.1% of 857. The populations are different and each page states its own, but nothing reconciles them for a reader who reads both. Its Hispar box, checked 2026-08-12, says there is "no maintained equivalent … no tooling to address it", which is now stale against this page's HTTP Archive secondary-page paragraph. **Deferred**, and filed: editing that page is outside this item's scope, so it is recorded as the ''sampling depth reconcile'' item in ''/workspace/drain/work.db''. The change it needs is one sentence pointing here plus a scope note on the two depth figures.
-  * **Why the render truncates is not established, only where.** The bisect isolates a threshold between about 51 KB and 60 KB of source for this page's content mix, but not the mechanism — most likely a PCRE backtrack or instruction limit in the parser rather than anything wrong with the markup, since every construct on the page is balanced and the truncated tail renders perfectly in isolation. Anyone adding to this log should re-check that the page still ends with its //References// heading.
+  * **Why a literal %%<WRAP todo>%% in a table cell truncates the page, while the same literal in prose elsewhere on this wiki does not, is not established.** The fix is verified causally — the page truncated before the escape and rendered in full immediately after, with nothing else changed — but two other provenance pages carry unbalanced %%<WRAP>%% counts and render to the end, so the table cell is doing something the prose case is not. Not chased further.
   * **No discriminant was run for ''crawlConfig.authentication''.** The page's 553 ''none'' values are treated as an upper bound in the prose, but the same ''LANDING''/''DEEPER''-style check that validated ''interactionDepth'' would take an afternoon and has not been done.
   * **The stability figures for ''interactionDepth'' (97% run-to-run) were measured on the old 4,322-paper corpus** and have not been re-measured. They are quoted from ''data/extract/OVERVIEW.md'' as the right order of magnitude.
@@ Line 273: / Line 295: @@
   - **Calling landing-page-only crawls "still defensible"** rather than outdated. Aqeel et al. and Urban et al. both argue for internal pages, and it would have been easy to write the currency table as "landing-only is superseded". It is not: 155 of 417 depth-stating papers still do it, Lauinger et al. {[lauinger2017_thou]} give a good reason, and for many questions the landing page is the right unit. The claim the page makes is that it is no longer defensible //silently//.
   - **Publishing a synthetic fixture rather than a live crawl.** A live measurement of "third parties visible only after scrolling" over a real site list would be a stronger result. It would also be a crawl of third-party sites run from this container without an ethics review or a robots check. The fixture makes the mechanism visible; the open-questions box names the real measurement as missing.
-  - **Splitting the raw script outputs onto [[provenance:programming:interaction:outputs|a sub-page]].** Forced, not chosen. With all five %%<file>%% blocks inline this page **silently truncated its own rendering**: the parser stopped mid-table and the //Related// and //References// sections were simply absent from the HTML, with no error and no purple warning — the failure mode this wiki has been bitten by before but from a different cause. Bisected on ''playground:playground'' on 2026-08-27: renders in full at ~51 KB of source, truncates at ~60 KB, on a wiki where ''provenance:programming:stateful_stateless'' renders 111 KB fine — so it is a content-mix limit, not a byte limit, and this page's 12 tables and dense inline markup are the likely cost. Every line of output is still published; it is one click away and linked from each point that produced it. **A reasonable person could instead have trimmed the outputs**; that would have broken the rule that the output on the provenance page is unedited.
+  - **Splitting the raw script outputs onto [[provenance:programming:interaction:outputs|a sub-page]].** Done while chasing a render bug, and kept afterwards. The bug turned out to be something else entirely (below), so the split is no longer forced — it is kept because the log reads better without 39 KB of raw output between its sections, and every line of that output is still published, one click away, linked from the point that produced it. **A reasonable person would keep them inline**; the rule that matters — the output is unedited — holds either way.
   - **Not adding ''~~DISCUSSION~~'' to this provenance page.** Following the convention set by the existing ''provenance:'' pages: comments belong on the content page.