Closed
Bug 1170155
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Make reviewboard "bugs" link in the right-hand column work before publishing a review request
Categories
(MozReview Graveyard :: General, defect, P2)
MozReview Graveyard
General
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: Gijs, Assigned: botond, Mentored)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
I would like to be able to check which bug I've pointed the review request to before publishing. Now I can't easily. I guess an alternative would be linkifying bug numbers in patch summaries. I don't know if there's a separate bug on file for that? (I couldn't find one, but I imagine I'm just not looking in the right places?)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P2
Updated•9 years ago
|
Mentor: smacleod
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Botond Ballo [:botond] from comment #1) > Is it cool if I take this bug? Definitely - I've assigned it to you.
Assignee: nobody → botond
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: needinfo?(smacleod)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
reviewboardmods: populate the 'Bugs' field in review drafts (bug 1170155). r=smacleod
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8650159 [details] MozReview Request: reviewboardmods: populate the 'Bugs' field in review drafts (bug 1170155). r=smacleod This is a first crack. I tested it in my local test environment and it seems to be working. I didn't remove the code that sets the bugs_closed field upon publishing; should I, or might we still need it for some edge cases where the bug isn't known at draft creation time?
Attachment #8650159 -
Flags: feedback?(smacleod)
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/16557/#review14901 Looks good for the most part - I *do* think we should remove the code for setting the bug field when publishing as you mentioned in the bug. ::: hgext/reviewboard/hgrb/proto.py:279 (Diff revision 1) > + 'bug': str(reviewid.bug) if reviewid.bug else '', is it possible that `reviewid.bug` is falsey here? I would have assumed not since we require a reviewid with a valid bug. ::: pylib/reviewboardmods/reviewboardmods/pushhooks.py:49 (Diff revision 1) > + 'bug': <bug-id>, I feel like this should be an optional field - eventually we're going to allow commits without bugs (which we'll auto file a bug for, but maybe that happens before this step... hmmm). If we are assuming this is required though, I'd rather not allow empty string entries through - I think we want to assume a valid bug number is required. ::: pylib/reviewboardmods/reviewboardmods/pushhooks.py:436 (Diff revision 1) > + all_bugs = ','.join(set(commit['bug'] for commit in commits['individual'])) as it stands this will possibly allow the empty string into the set. We should be fine though if we're removing that part from above.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8650159 -
Flags: feedback?(smacleod)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Steven MacLeod [:smacleod] from comment #5) > ::: hgext/reviewboard/hgrb/proto.py:279 > (Diff revision 1) > > + 'bug': str(reviewid.bug) if reviewid.bug else '', > > is it possible that `reviewid.bug` is falsey here? I would have assumed not > since we require a reviewid with a valid bug. I assumed it was, given that we check for it above [1]. Looking at the ReviewID constructor, the only case where `bug` is left falsey but no exception is thrown is if the bug number is zero. Is that perhaps something we meant to disallow but overlooked? > ::: pylib/reviewboardmods/reviewboardmods/pushhooks.py:49 > (Diff revision 1) > > + 'bug': <bug-id>, > > I feel like this should be an optional field - eventually we're going to > allow commits without bugs (which we'll auto file a bug for, but maybe that > happens before this step... hmmm). If we end up allowing that, and the auto-filing doesn't happen yet by this time, I guess we can adjust this code then. > If we are assuming this is required though, I'd rather not allow empty > string entries through - I think we want to assume a valid bug number is > required. Do you mean that _post_reviews should check for this and throw an exception if the bug string is empty? [1] https://dxr.mozilla.org/hgcustom_version-control-tools/rev/b21e237d6b5ec962898a999df305dd1bcd49bee3/hgext/reviewboard/hgrb/proto.py?offset=0#232
Flags: needinfo?(smacleod)
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Botond Ballo [:botond] from comment #6) Sorry for the delay on this reply! In the future, could you reply to review feedback in Review Board rather than bugzilla (so it becomes part of the threaded conversation on the review I made). There should be an "add comment" link by each issue/comment I made which you can use to build a reply then publish. > > is it possible that `reviewid.bug` is falsey here? I would have assumed not > > since we require a reviewid with a valid bug. > > I assumed it was, given that we check for it above [1]. Ah looking again we *aren't* enforcing the bug in reviewid on the server (I guess that's only enforced on the client side right now). I guess this is fine for now and we can update it if we properly enforce on the server. > Looking at the ReviewID constructor, the only case where `bug` is left > falsey but no exception is thrown is if the bug number is zero. Is that > perhaps something we meant to disallow but overlooked? Yes, this has been overlooked, nice catch. Could you maybe patch that up while you're doing this stuff? > > ::: pylib/reviewboardmods/reviewboardmods/pushhooks.py:49 > > (Diff revision 1) > > > + 'bug': <bug-id>, > > > > I feel like this should be an optional field - eventually we're going to > > allow commits without bugs (which we'll auto file a bug for, but maybe that > > happens before this step... hmmm). > > If we end up allowing that, and the auto-filing doesn't happen yet by this > time, I guess we can adjust this code then. Ya that's fine. > > If we are assuming this is required though, I'd rather not allow empty > > string entries through - I think we want to assume a valid bug number is > > required. > > Do you mean that _post_reviews should check for this and throw an exception > if the bug string is empty? Just throwing an exception would be problematic, we'd want to send a nice formated error message back down to the hg client. For now, instead of setting the bug number to an empty string in this case, just don't include the bugs field in the request to Review Board.
Flags: needinfo?(smacleod)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
Addressed review comments, posting updated patch for review. Sorry for the long turnaround time!
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8650159 -
Flags: review?(smacleod)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8650159 [details] MozReview Request: reviewboardmods: populate the 'Bugs' field in review drafts (bug 1170155). r=smacleod reviewboardmods: populate the 'Bugs' field in review drafts (bug 1170155). r=smacleod
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8650159 [details] MozReview Request: reviewboardmods: populate the 'Bugs' field in review drafts (bug 1170155). r=smacleod https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/16557/#review17031 Looks good, thanks again for taking care of this :) ::: pylib/rbbz/rbbz/extension.py:357 (Diff revision 2) > - # At this point, we know that the bug ID that we've got > + # Note that the bug ID has already been set when the review was created. > - # is valid and accessible. > - review_request_draft.bugs_closed = str(bug_id) This will mean any pushed, but unpublished, review requests which exist when we deploy won't get their bug number set. One way around this would be to heave this change be a separate commit which would be deployed after waiting a period of time from the other deploy. I'm tempted to say lets just ignore the problem as it should be pretty rare if we deploy when things aren't active. I guess I'll leave this here as a record that it was thought about.
Attachment #8650159 -
Flags: review?(smacleod) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
Thanks! Landed: https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/rev/efe490db29c2
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/rev/ba432f038ee3ec8d62d07f1c346ab1a5b9f8c662 reviewboard: update test to reflect bugs saved on draft review request (bug 1170155)
Updated•8 years ago
|
Product: Developer Services → MozReview
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•