Delay after submit

[Peter Blomberg]

Philo wrote that "... BL keywords are automagically added by PT after "some time"" in the comments of one patterned part.

How long does one need to wait for that to happen and why is there a delay?

If the delay is there for a reason, can't the patterned parts be flagged somehow to indicate that it is not yet ready for review?

[Orion Pobursky]

There's a delay for 2 reasons:
- The external site lookup is a queued process. Why is it queued? Rebrickable API calls are limited to 1 request/sec. If someone submitted 15 new parts (e.g. part that haven't already had the Rebrickable lookup happen) that would be 14 seconds on top of the rest of the processing time. No one wants to wait that long and now we're starting to run dangerously close to the default timeout of 30sec
- Patterned part names are different between Rebrickable and LDraw. If you submit a new patterned part, odds are that the LDraw number hasn't been set in the Rebrickable DB. They pull our info once a day and process from there. I have it set up so that all new parts, without Rebrickable data, do a relookup 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after submission.

Bottom line:
With very few exceptions (read offensive words), parts with errors or omissions in keywords (that aren't already enforced by the submit process) are review ready and should not be given a Hold vote for that reason.

[Peter Blomberg]

... parts with errors or omissions in keywords (that aren't already enforced by the submit process) are review ready and should not be given a Hold vote for that reason.

Am I to understand that if the rebrickable keyword supplied by the submitter is wrong, then I'm not supposed to place a hold vote?

[Orion Pobursky]

If there are any errors in the header that aren't caught by the submit process then only a comment is needed. I read every comment before I certify and fixing header errors is trivial.

[Peter Blomberg]

If there are any errors in the header that aren't caught by the submit process then only a comment is needed. I read every comment before I certify and fixing header errors is trivial.

In terms of correcting the keywords, I fully understand your viewpoint. However, I'm concerned that the review process itself is more laborious if the external link keywords are wrong or missing since it makes finding images that much harder. From what I have so far elucidated, Rebrickable and BrickLink are also the main sources for verifying the colors on a pattern.

In the absence of images, I could only review the actual code lines in the file. Thus resulting in a partial review. Can I then use a phrase such as "Visual comparison and colors haven't been checked" when submitting a certify vote? Or should I only make a comment such as "The code appears ok"?

[Orion Pobursky]

I get your concern. Two things:
- While I've tried to make it easier, part review has always involved some amount of research. Also, every pattern and sticker requires a set keyword. This is enforced by the submit process. If the external site keywords are missing, you can use the set number. 
- We should be primarily concerned with visual correctness. Meta data and color is fixable without an obsolete and (except in rare cases) origin/geometry are not. 

I think we're starting getting too far out in the weeds with some of our reviews. Some of that may be that by working closer with RB, I've made it significantly easier to find the source material. I'm not going to take away functionality but I will remind reviewers of the real goal now and again which is user experience.

[Orion Pobursky]

One other thing:
You don't need to comment at all when you certify. Only hold votes require comments.

[Peter Blomberg]

... I will remind reviewers of the real goal now and again which is user experience.

This tidbit had actually gone past me. I know I still have a lot to learn. I would welcome an elaboration of the topic.