200472 - Using an array as a reference is deprecated at Date/Format.pm

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Installation & Upgrading, defect)

Description

[Andreas Hasenack]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pt-BR; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030317
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pt-BR; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030317

My apache error log files are filled with entries like these:

[Thu Apr 03 10:37:34 2003] [error] [client 200.221.3.123] Using an array as a
reference is deprecated at
[Thu Apr 03 10:37:34 2003] [error] [client 200.221.3.123]      
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Date/Format.pm line 88 (#1)
[Thu Apr 03 10:37:34 2003] [error] [client 200.221.3.123]     (D deprecated) You
tried to use an array as a reference, as in
[Thu Apr 03 10:37:34 2003] [error] [client 200.221.3.123]     < @foo-[23] >> or
< @$ref-[99] >>.  Versions of perl <= 5.6.1 used to
[Thu Apr 03 10:37:34 2003] [error] [client 200.221.3.123]     allow this syntax,
but shouldn't have. It is now deprecated, and will be
[Thu Apr 03 10:37:34 2003] [error] [client 200.221.3.123]     removed in a
future version.

This is an installation with:
apache-2.0.45
perl-5.8.0
bugzilla-2.16.2



Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Just keep wathing apache's error_log file
2. Use bugzilla to query a bug or enter a new bug


Actual Results:  
Error log filled with that entry.

Expected Results:  
Bugzilla should not use a deprecated perl feature.

Comment 1

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

uhhh...  is Date::Parse broken or are we feeding it something bad?

Comment 2

[Bradley Baetz (:bbaetz)]

I don't see this. What Date::Parse version do you have?

Comment 3

[Andreas Hasenack]

It's perl-timedate-1.10
.

Comment 4

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

current version is 1.14.  Try upgrading it and see if the problem goes away.  If
so, we probably need to have checksetup require a newer version.

Comment 5

[Andreas Hasenack]

I just upgraded to version 1.14 and this problem did go away. Don't know if it
would have worked with a previous version, but anyway, a version check seems to
be  needed.
Thanks!

Comment 6

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

It isn't fixed until we check it in...

Comment 7

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

moving to proper component and confirming

Comment 8

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

/src/GBARR/TimeDate-1.11/ChangeLog:
Change 690 on 2001/12/28 by <[e-mail]> (Graham Barr)

	Date::Format
	- Fix array dereference syntax typo

So version 1.11 had this fixed, and it thus the minimum version we need to
require.  The Date::Format within TimeDate-1.11 is version 2.21.

Comment 9

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

OK, we're not actually testing for Date::Format in checksetup.pl.  We're only
testing for Date::Parse, assuming that since it's part of the same distribution
package that if you have one you'd automatically have the other.  The
Date::Parse that's included in TimeDate-1.11 is 2.22 (and the one in
TimeDate-1.10 is 2.20).  Would it be safe to just look for Date::Parse 2.22 you
think?  (instead of Date::Parse (any) that we look for currently?)  Or would it
be better to add an explicit check for Date::Format 2.21?

Comment 10

[Jacob Steenhagen]

Maybe replace Date::Parse (any) with Date::Format (1.22); otherwise, we might
wonder why it is that we need the specific min version of Date::Parse someday in
the future...

Comment 11

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Attachment: Patch

changes version check from Date::Parse (any) to Date::Format (2.21).

Comment 12

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

mine

Comment 13

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Checking in checksetup.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/checksetup.pl,v  <--  checksetup.pl
new revision: 1.226; previous revision: 1.225
done

Comment 14

[Bradley Baetz (:bbaetz)]

Umm, this checks for version 1.21, not 2.21...

Comment 15

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Doh.  Shame on me and Jake. :)  Good catch.

Fixed.

Checking in checksetup.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/checksetup.pl,v  <--  checksetup.pl
new revision: 1.227; previous revision: 1.226
done

Comment 16

[Jacob Steenhagen]

For some reason I seemed to be pretty convinced that the 1.21 was correct... I
just looked at my local doc changes and I had typed 1.21 there, too.

Checked in the XML update w/the correct version information.