Closed
Bug 146261
Opened 22 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
Email not sent to users on CC list under some Status field transitions
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Email Notifications, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: ttaylor, Assigned: ttaylor)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
827 bytes,
patch
|
myk
:
review+
bbaetz
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I'm using a CVS snapshot of Bugzilla updated on 22 May 2002, around 12:00 EST. I have a user with the following email settings: - Only email reports of changes by others - All relationships for 'Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes' - All relationships for 'The bug is resolved or verified' All other email settings are turned off. This user is on the CC list for a bug. When the bug is RESOLVED, the user gets email. If the bug is then CLOSED, they don't get email, but should since the status field has changed. If the bug is then REOPENED they also don't get email, but should for the same reason. I have a patch for this problem against revision 1.81 (the head at the time of this report) of processmail which I will try to attach to this bug after submitting it.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
This is a patch against CVS revision 1.81 of the file processmail. This was the HEAD revision at the time this bug was posted.
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Summary: Email not sent to uses on CC list under some Status field transitions → Email not sent to users on CC list under some Status field transitions
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
myk's being playing with the filtering code recently. This looks right to me, though, and could explain some of the odd bugmails I occasio9nally get from bugzilla when bugs are reopened.
Comment 3•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 84669 [details] [diff] [review] Sends email on Status field changes other than RESOLVED Looks good, r=myk. It would be useful to note somewhere that 'The bug is resolved or verified' overrides 'Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes', since it isn't obvious why a user with the former unchecked and the latter checked doesn't get mail when the status changes to resolved or verified. This patch doesn't conflict at all with the filter changes I have been doing over in bug 128469.
Attachment #84669 -
Flags: review+
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
Hang on a sec. Why are these elsif's, then? Shouldn't they all be separate, so that if any of the things are true, we send mail?
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
No, because the code containing the elsifs runs once per change, so no change matches more than one condition. The only exception is status changes to resolved or verified, which match both the 'The bug is resolved or verified' and the 'Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes' preferences. Since the former preference is more specific than the latter, however, it should override it, so the elsifs work in that situation as well (but this should be documented).
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
I realise that they do match once per condition, but I'm asking why they do that.
Comment 7•22 years ago
|
||
They do it by definition. Every email preference matches different fields (modulo previously discussed Status overlap). Every iteration of the loop examines a change to one field. Thus by definition it will never be the case that more than one "elsif" condition is true for each iteration of the loop. Thus it makes no sense to separate these conditions from each other so that all of them get run; the first matching condition automatically excludes the possibility that other conditions match.
Comment 8•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 84669 [details] [diff] [review] Sends email on Status field changes other than RESOLVED r=bbaetz, then
Attachment #84669 -
Flags: review+
Comment 9•22 years ago
|
||
Tim, do you have check-in privileges, or do you need someone to check this in for you?
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•22 years ago
|
||
I don't have check-in privileges, so if someone could check my patch in for me that would be great.
Comment 11•22 years ago
|
||
If this bug is present on the 2.16 branch also, then it should be fixed there for 2.16, too, since this is a correctness issue. If this is the case and you agree, please adjust the target milestone.
Comment 12•22 years ago
|
||
Only regressions should be going onto the 2.16 branch at this point. Is this a regression?
Comment 13•22 years ago
|
||
Not sure if this is a regression. Anyway, if it's not gonna make the branch then you need a release note like this "There is a known bug that causes you to not get bugmail with certain email settings. To fix this, apply the patch from bug 146261." Not sure what is better: to have such a release note, or to check in the fix. :-)
Comment 14•22 years ago
|
||
At this point, it's probably to add to the release notes, which is bug 97496.
Comment 15•22 years ago
|
||
Request for release note submitted to bug 97496. Note that I still think this is (at least temporary) dataloss because you are not getting notified of possibly important changes. (And way more important than html compliance and such ;-)
Comment 16•22 years ago
|
||
Myk please file a bug on making the wording on those prefs more specific as you suggest.
Comment 17•22 years ago
|
||
I'm trying to write a release note for this, but it's not obvious what the bug is here specifically. Is it that 'Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes' is ignored? Or just in certain situations? Or doesn't really apply to statuses? Or what? Apparently this is true for 2.14 too so I'll release note it for 2.14.2 too.
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•22 years ago
|
||
The bug is that there are two email notification categories that overlap: "Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes", and "The bug is resolved or verified". Prior to my patch, if the status field of a bug changed from CLOSED to REOPENED, NO email notification was being sent. With my patch, email will be sent in this situation. The information that needs to go in the release notes is to explain a side-effect of the patch. If I've registered to receive email when "Priority, status, severity, and/or milestone changes", but not for "The bug is resolved or verified", I won't get an email when a bug is "resolved or verified" even though the status field has changed. After submitting my patch and watching the discussion that followed, I've begun to think that email should really go to both groups of people in the case I described above. Then there wouldn't be a need for an explanation in the release notes. If people concur, I'll make a new version of the patch.
Comment 19•22 years ago
|
||
OK, so the basic problem was that status changes were not governed by the option that claimed to govern it, but rather the resolution/verification one. And the patch that is included changes it so all status changes are governed except to RESOLVED and VERIFIED.
Comment 20•22 years ago
|
||
Matty, are you sure? Isn't it that without the patch, any status changes except resolved and verified didn't trigger at all? And that nobody else noticed it only because most people have other flags set as well (e.g. comments) and usually status changes are accompanied with comments?
Comment 21•22 years ago
|
||
That's what I meant.
Comment 23•22 years ago
|
||
Myk fixed this with: revision 1.82 date: 2002/05/23 08:08:53; author: myk%mozilla.org; state: Exp; lines: +2 -4 Fix for bug 146261: fixes bug preventing the sending of email to users when the status of bugs changes in some situations. Patch by Tim Taylor <ttaylor@mitre.org>. r=myk,bbaetz but didn't mark the bug as fixed
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 24•22 years ago
|
||
D'oh!
Comment 25•22 years ago
|
||
I concur with comment #18 from Tim Taylor. When a bug gets RESOLVED or CLOSED, bug mail should go out to people who want to be notified of status changes, whether or not they also signed up to get "resolved or closed" mail. It's a lot more logical. You're doing it the way people expect, instead of doing it the way people don't expect and documenting it as a feature. It's any easy fix, too: just change "elsif ( $fieldName eq 'Severity' || ..." to " if ( $fieldName eq 'Severity' || ..." and you're done! (Well, you should also change the comments above, as well.)
Comment 26•22 years ago
|
||
I STR that the customised resolution stuff will split those sorts of status changes up.
Updated•12 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
Comment hidden (spam) |
Comment hidden (spam) |
Comment 31•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Andreas Franke (gone) from comment #15) > Request for release note submitted to bug 97496. Note that I still think > this is > (at least temporary) dataloss because you are not getting notified of > possibly > important changes. (And way more important than html compliance and such ;-) bug 1328087 also resolved
Comment hidden (spam) |
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•