Closed Bug 1229990 Opened 9 years ago Closed 5 years ago

See Also: support Flyspray trackers

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, enhancement)

enhancement
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 577847

People

(Reporter: vapier, Assigned: vapier)

References

()

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

the Flyspray tracker is used by some projects like Arch Linux
Attachment #8695061 - Flags: review?(glob)
Attachment #8695061 - Flags: review?(glob) → review?(gerv)
Severity: normal → enhancement
Comment on attachment 8695061 [details] [diff] [review]
0001-MoreBugUrl-add-Flyspray-support.patch

Review of attachment 8695061 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: extensions/MoreBugUrl/lib/Flyspray.pm
@@ +20,5 @@
> +sub should_handle {
> +    my ($class, $uri) = @_;
> +
> +    # Flyspray URLs look like the following:
> +    #   https://bugs.flyspray.org/task/1237

Won't this never get called because the Savane matcher will match first?

Gerv

::: extensions/MoreBugUrl/template/en/default/hook/global/user-error-bug_url_invalid_tracker.html.tmpl
@@ +15,4 @@
>  <li>An issue in a Redmine installation.</li>
>  <li>A b[% %]ug in a Savane installation.</li>
>  <li>A task in a Phabricator installation.</li>
> +<li>A task on a Flyspray tracking system.</li>

"in a", not "on a".
Attachment #8695061 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review-
Savane trackers have a ? delimiter while flyspray do not, so this match should be fine.

  https://bugs.flyspray.org/task/1237
  https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?107657
(In reply to Mike Frysinger from comment #2)
> Savane trackers have a ? delimiter while flyspray do not, so this match
> should be fine.
> 
>   https://bugs.flyspray.org/task/1237
>   https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?107657

Well, OK, although this rather points up the fragileness of this particular method of URL allocation... Fix the other thing and r=gerv.

gerv
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #3)

sure, but the URL matching is fundamental to the current See Also logic.  the issue isn't really specific to any module.  the alternative would be to just allow all URLs as suggested in other bugs ...
Attachment #8695061 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8708503 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Attachment #8708503 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: