123789 - prompt for bugs to change when none selected on "change multiple" form

Status: NEW

(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, enhancement)

Description

[Mehdi Lavasani]

I tried to change the status of few bugs at the same time. I forgot to choose
the bugs!!, When I Clicked the commit button, It gave me Mysql error. I think it
should give an html page to tell the user to choose the bugs to be changed.

Comment 1

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

The bug is a duplicate of bug 90333, but the feature request (displaying a page
asking you to select the bugs you want to change) is not.  Altering summary
accordingly.

Comment 2

[Shane H. W. Travis]

I believe that I am reading this request differently than Myk. It seems to me 
that the OP is just asking for a nice HTML page and a message telling the user 
to choose the bugs to be changed. This is indeed what happens now; if you don't 
select any bugs, it pops up a standard error window, saying:

"You apparently did not choose any bugs to modify."

This is how 90333 was fixed, thus making this a complete dupe of that bug. If I 
have misinterpreted the wishes of the original poster, please comment to say so.

Marking as DUPLICATE.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 90333 ***

Comment 3

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

It's unclear what the reporter meant.  The summary of this bug asks Bugzilla to
prompt the user, while the description only complains that Bugzilla fails to
notify them.  Bug 90333 fixes the notification issue, but it doesn't fix
prompting, and we should do both, so reopening this bug.

Comment 4

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

We already have javascript on there for "check all" and "uncheck all" so we
alreayd have code that walks the checkboxes setting or unsetting them.  It would
be trivial to also walk them on submit and refuse the submit if there's nothing
checked (and alert to the user).

Comment 5

[Shane H. W. Travis]

(In reply to comment #3)
> It's unclear what the reporter meant.  
I disagree. The user asked for "an html page to tell the user to choose the 
bugs to be changed" because the contemporary page was throwing an SQL error. 
That seems quite clear to me.

> The summary of this bug asks Bugzilla to prompt the user, while the
> description only complains that Bugzilla fails to notify them.  
True... but that is only because you changed the summary based on what you 
thought the user wanted, not what the user actually said. The user reported a 
bug; it was filed as bug (severity != enhancement), and it had 'bug' in the 
summary. In the process of changing the summary, you also changed it from a  
bug-report to an enhancement-request.


> Bug 90333 fixes the notification issue, but it doesn't fix
> prompting, and we should do both, so reopening this bug.
At the time it was created, this bug was a direct duplicate of bug 90333, 
should have been resolved as such. I'm not sure why you think that there's a 
feature request in here; I don't see one, nor has anyone else I asked to look 
at this bug. An enhancement request to add prompting is not unreasonable, but 
should have been opened as a separate issue. 

(I am somewhat sensitive to this, as I just the exact same thing to someone 
else recently -- hijacked their bug with my own agenda based on a misreading of 
the original description.)

The time for me to make these comments, however, would have been shortly after 
2002-02-06 03:04. As this bug has lain open for three years with the altered 
summary/direction and no word from the original poster, it's fair to say that 
the new direction has superseded the old, and that the focus of this bug has 
morphed. Ideally, I'd still prefer to see a new enhancement request opened with 
a clear description of what we are trying to accomplish... but if you'd rather 
reopen this one then I won't say anything further against it.

Comment 6

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

> you changed the summary based on what you 
> thought the user wanted, not what the user actually said.

Ah, so I did, apparently inadvertently.


> An enhancement request to add prompting is not unreasonable, but 
> should have been opened as a separate issue.

Yes, you're right, it should have.


> (I am somewhat sensitive to this, as I just the exact same thing to someone 
> else recently -- hijacked their bug with my own agenda based on a misreading
> of the original description.)

Sounds like you made an honest mistake.

Speaking in general (and not about this bug), it's important to note that
morphing bugs is sometimes a good idea, as problems change under scrutiny, and
the reporter's desired/requested solution to a problem isn't necessarily the
right one.

> Ideally, I'd still prefer to see a new enhancement request opened with 
> a clear description of what we are trying to accomplish... but if you'd rather 
> reopen this one then I won't say anything further against it.

At this point I think we're better off leaving this bug in its morphed state,
but if you'd rather dupe it and have me open a new one, I'm OK with that.

Comment 7

[Shane H. W. Travis]

(In reply to comment #6)
> At this point I think we're better off leaving this bug in its morphed state,

I would agree. Dave has a good suggestion in comment #4 as to how this could be 
accomplished, and I wouldn't want it to get lost.

I probably just should have left it alone when I was doing the triaging, but 
I'm glad we had the discussion.