Closed
Bug 257765
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Replies to private comments should default to being private
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, enhancement)
Bugzilla
Creating/Changing Bugs
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: Wurblzap, Assigned: Wurblzap)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
1.78 KB,
patch
|
kiko
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-DE; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040707 Firefox/0.9.2 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-DE; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040707 Firefox/0.9.2 I think it might be a good idea to check the "private" checkbox for the new comment when pressing "reply" on a private comment. This would reduce the risk of disclosing confidential information. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #157708 -
Flags: review?
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Summary: Replies to private bugs should default to be private → Replies to private comments should default to being private
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 157708 [details] [diff] [review] Check the "private" checkbox for the new comment when replying to a private comment >+++ patched/template/en/default/bug/comments.html.tmpl >+ [% ELSE %] >+ <input type="hidden" id="isprivate-[% count Not much point in having a hidden field if it has no value, or is there? > [% IF Param("insidergroup") && UserInGroup(Param("insidergroup")) %] >- <input type="checkbox" name="commentprivacy" value="1"> Private >+ <input type="checkbox" name="commentprivacy" id="commentprivacy" >+ value="1"> Private That's odd. If the default value is 1, why isn't it already always on?
Updated•20 years ago
|
Assignee: myk → wurblzap
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > >+ <input type="hidden" id="isprivate-[% count > > Not much point in having a hidden field if it has no value, or is there? The point is to have a field looking like an unchecked checkbox. (field.checked evaluates to false.) But I see that this is not really very readable. So I removed the field, and the JavaScript code looking at the field now applies only if the real checkbox is available. > >- <input type="checkbox" name="commentprivacy" value="1"> Private > > That's odd. If the default value is 1, why isn't it already always on? The value attribute of a checkbox is what's being sent to the server as its form value, if checked. The state of checkedness is given by the checked attribute.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #157708 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #157708 -
Flags: review?
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #158004 -
Flags: review?
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking2.20?
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 158004 [details] [diff] [review] Auto-check "private" checkbox Looks good and simple enough to make a quick cut.
Attachment #158004 -
Flags: review? → review+
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
One note: should we really use "newcommentprivacy" as the id but "commentprivacy" as the name? I think they should be consistently equal; I can fix this when checking in, however, so let's seek approval.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: approval?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5) > One note: should we really use "newcommentprivacy" as the id but > "commentprivacy" as the name? I think they should be consistently equal; I can > fix this when checking in, however, so let's seek approval. I agree. I'd prefer newcommentprivacy, but that has impact on process_bug.cgi and all, so I'd say we'd better stick with commentprivacy for now.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
Sure. Let's go ahead and throw this on 2.18 while we still can. :) This is enough of a "Right Thing to do" that it should be there.
Flags: blocking2.20?
Flags: blocking2.20+
Flags: blocking2.18+
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval2.18+
Flags: approval+
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Checking in template/en/default/bug/comments.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/comments.html.tmpl,v <-- comments.html.tmpl new revision: 1.11.2.1; previous revision: 1.11 done Checking in template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl,v <-- edit.html.tmpl new revision: 1.40.2.2; previous revision: 1.40.2.1 done Checking in template/en/default/bug/comments.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/comments.html.tmpl,v <-- comments.html.tmpl new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12 done Checking in template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl,v <-- edit.html.tmpl new revision: 1.44; previous revision: 1.43 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•12 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
Comment 9•4 years ago
|
||
Find the best bride by mail is now possible. We offer you a beautiful https://realmailorderbride.com/russian. Caring girls want dating. Come on our site you will surely meet your fate.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•