475743 - Eliminate the need to have a second argument to Hook.process when inside a BLOCK

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Bugzilla :: Extensions, enhancement)

Description

[Alex Eiser]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_5; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.6+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1
Build Identifier: HEAD

If you use an extension, and want to add content via a HOOK

in template/en/default/list/list.html.tmpl
[% PROCESS bugcount %]

[% BLOCK bugcount %]
  [% Hook.process('ALEX_ASKING') %]
[% END %]


Reproducible: Always

Actual Results:  
this tries to find the following template files in 3 locations
./extensions/example/template/en//-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl
./extensions/example/template/en/default/hook/bugcount/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl
./template/en/default/hook/bugcount/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl


Expected Results:  
Instead of 
./extensions/example/template/en//testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl
OR
./extensions/example/template/en/list/testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl

The following two are ok.
./extensions/example/template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl
./template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl

If this is expected behavior for backwards compatibility then please bug as invalid.

This is a variant of bug 318205

Comment 1

[Alex Eiser]

> Expected Results:  
> Instead of 
> ./extensions/example/template/en//testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl
> OR
> ./extensions/example/template/en/list/testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl

should have been

Expected Results:  
Instead of 
./extensions/example/template/en//bugcount-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl
Should be
./extensions/example/template/en/list/bugcount-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl

Also note that these two
./extensions/example/template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl
./template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl
Don't respect a disabled flag

Comment 3

[Alex Eiser]

note that the above issues still exists on the head. Reopen 318205 if you think they are a duplicate.

Comment 4

[Frédéric Buclin]

mkanat says you run 3.1.2. If that's true, could you upgrade to 3.2 and tell us if you can still reproduce the problem? If yes, then reopen the bug.

Comment 5

[Alex Eiser]

(In reply to comment #4)
> mkanat says you run 3.1.2. If that's true, could you upgrade to 3.2 and tell us
> if you can still reproduce the problem? If yes, then reopen the bug.

I tested this on bugzilla head.

It may not be a real problem, but the actual paths that are checked are bad.

Comment 6

[Frédéric Buclin]

Let's confirm it for now.

Comment 7

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

This bug, as reported, is actually invalid, though because of a reason you might not expect--we solved the problem you're experiencing by allowing a second argument to Hook.process, which you're not specifying in your hook call.

However, I think there's a way to work around that ourselves and not require people to have a second argument to process() when they call it from inside a block.

Comment 8

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

mkanat says this bug is fixable but doesn't explain how. Until he comes back and tells us, marking WONTFIX :-)

Gerv