Closed Bug 1285748 Opened 8 years ago Closed 8 years ago

Automatic ticket links - Please support "ticket #x"

Categories

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: General, enhancement)

Product:
bugzilla.mozilla.org
Component:
General
Version:
Production
Type:
enhancement
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
VERIFIED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: chealer, Unassigned)

Details

In ticket #1280837, I referred to ticket #1280787 as "ticket #1280787". Since this does not trigger a link to the ticket, Wayne Mery suggested to use the style "bug #x" instead. After I pointed out this would not have been correct in this case, Wayne mentioned that other people would ask me to do the same.

Wayne is probably right, since I remember this already happened just a few weeks ago, in ticket #1282244 comment #10.

Bugzilla should support more ways to refer to a ticket. At least "ticket #x", "bug report #x" and "issue report #x".
(I'm NI'ing two Bugzilla people I met in bug 1192722):
Byron and Teemu: Do you think this is a reasonable request?
Flags: needinfo?(wicked)
Flags: needinfo?(glob)
while i don't work on bugzilla anymore, i don't think we should support anything more than just "bug".
Flags: needinfo?(wicked)
Flags: needinfo?(glob)
I agree. It will add additional complexity to the code and the word *bug* can be described in many different ways that we would have to keep adding to it over time.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(In reply to David Lawrence [:dkl] from comment #3)
> I agree. It will add additional complexity to the code

Huh. How much complexity do you think this requires?

> and the word *bug* can be described in many different ways that we would have to keep adding to
> it over time.

Bugzilla is not a dictionary. This is merely asking to automatically add links to a ticket when designating a certain one properly.

And why did you just mark this ticket as resolved?
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Lawrence [:dkl] from comment #3)
> > I agree. It will add additional complexity to the code
> Huh. How much complexity do you think this requires?

there's a real performance cost to adding additional terms - on top of the added regex complexity, each possible term on every comment needs to be looked up against the database.  the gains we'd get from linking infrequently used terms don't outweigh costs in this instance.

> > and the word *bug* can be described in many different ways that we would have to keep adding to
> > it over time.
> 
> Bugzilla is not a dictionary. This is merely asking to automatically add
> links to a ticket when designating a certain one properly.

the _proper_ designation on bugzilla is "bug".
 
> And why did you just mark this ticket as resolved?

when requests for changes come in they need to be evaluated and determined if they are a good fit for the project.  there's a lot of factors to take into consideration, not all of them immediately obvious to someone who isn't working on the codebase.  dkl, as project owner, has made the decision not to take action on your suggested change, so has closed the bug as RESOLVED/WONTFIX.  i agree with his decision.
(In reply to Byron Jones ‹:glob› from comment #5)
> (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #4)
> > (In reply to David Lawrence [:dkl] from comment #3)
> > > I agree. It will add additional complexity to the code
> > Huh. How much complexity do you think this requires?
> 
> there's a real performance cost to adding additional terms - on top of the
> added regex complexity, each possible term on every comment needs to be
> looked up against the database.

I do not understand. I am not suggesting to increase the number of terms in comments.

[...]
 
> > > and the word *bug* can be described in many different ways that we would have to keep adding to
> > > it over time.
> > 
> > Bugzilla is not a dictionary. This is merely asking to automatically add
> > links to a ticket when designating a certain one properly.
> 
> the _proper_ designation on bugzilla is "bug".

"Bug" refers to a defect. It can not designate all issues, and even less issue reports. And even if it was a proper term, it would not make the proper terms improper.

> > And why did you just mark this ticket as resolved?
> 
> when requests for changes come in they need to be evaluated and determined
> if they are a good fit for the project.  there's a lot of factors to take
> into consideration, not all of them immediately obvious to someone who isn't
> working on the codebase.  dkl, as project owner, has made the decision not
> to take action on your suggested change, so has closed the bug as
> RESOLVED/WONTFIX.

I have no issue with dkl - or anyone, project owner or not - refraining from addressing this issue. What I was asking is why this ticket was marked as resolved, when there is no indication to that effect.
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #6)
> I do not understand. I am not suggesting to increase the number of terms in
> comments.
> [..]
> "Bug" refers to a defect. It can not designate all issues[..]

sorry, but that's exactly what you're suggesting.

currently we only support a single "term" for an item tracked by bugzilla: "bug".
we use the term 'bug' to refer to all things tracked by bugzilla.
i agree that it isn't the best term, but it's what we have.

you asked for "ticket #x", "bug report #x" and "issue report #x".
these are all additional terms for bugs.

> I have no issue with dkl - or anyone, project owner or not - refraining from
> addressing this issue. What I was asking is why this ticket was marked as
> resolved, when there is no indication to that effect.

when a bug is marked as RESOLVED there's a reason also set.

for example, when a bug is fixed, it will be marked as RESOLVED/FIXED; or if a bug is not valid (eg. spam), it will be RESOLVED/INVALID.

in this case it's RESOLVED/WONTFIX, which means "not further action will be taken here" (RESOLVED) "because we've decided not to make any changes" (WONTFIX).

you can see a list of the possible resolutions on https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Bugzilla/What_to_do_and_what_not_to_do_in_Bugzilla#Resolving_bugs
(In reply to Byron Jones ‹:glob› from comment #7)
> (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #6)
> > I do not understand. I am not suggesting to increase the number of terms in
> > comments.
> > [..]
> > "Bug" refers to a defect. It can not designate all issues[..]
> 
> sorry, but that's exactly what you're suggesting.
> 
> currently we only support a single "term" for an item tracked by bugzilla:
> "bug".
> we use the term 'bug' to refer to all things tracked by bugzilla.
> i agree that it isn't the best term, but it's what we have.
> 
> you asked for "ticket #x", "bug report #x" and "issue report #x".
> these are all additional terms for bugs.

They are terms to designate tickets.

I do not understand what you claim I am suggesting, but I am not suggesting to increase the number of terms in comments. If a comment reads "Please see ticket #x", it will still contain 4 terms once this is solved. It will simply have an (extra) link on "ticket #x".

> 
> > I have no issue with dkl - or anyone, project owner or not - refraining from
> > addressing this issue. What I was asking is why this ticket was marked as
> > resolved, when there is no indication to that effect.
> 
> when a bug is marked as RESOLVED there's a reason also set.
> 
> for example, when a bug is fixed, it will be marked as RESOLVED/FIXED; or if
> a bug is not valid (eg. spam), it will be RESOLVED/INVALID.
> 
> in this case it's RESOLVED/WONTFIX, which means "not further action will be
> taken here" (RESOLVED) "because we've decided not to make any changes"
> (WONTFIX).

"RESOLVED" does not merely mean that "not further action will be taken here"; it means the issue reported was resolved. A ticket should never be RESOLVED/WONTFIX. For what it's worth, I reported the fact that this is currently possible in ticket #1288913: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913
this will be my final response on this issue.

> I do not understand what you claim I am suggesting, but I am not suggesting
> to increase the number of terms in comments. If a comment reads "Please see
> ticket #x", it will still contain 4 terms once this is solved. It will
> simply have an (extra) link on "ticket #x".

from a bugzilla code point of view we'd have to support more than a single term when looking for words that could be a reference to a bug ("bug", "ticket", "issue", "bug report", "issue report", ..).

> "RESOLVED" does not merely mean that "not further action will be taken
> here"; it means the issue reported was resolved. A ticket should never be
> RESOLVED/WONTFIX.

it's very common to find terms take on different meanings in different contexts; especially when comparing terms used in both conversational english and computer science.  we won't be changing more than a decade of established terminology to appease one person.

> For what it's worth, I reported the fact that this is
> currently possible in ticket #1288913:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913

closed as resolved/invalid.
(In reply to Byron Jones ‹:glob› from comment #9)
> this will be my final response on this issue.
> 
> > I do not understand what you claim I am suggesting, but I am not suggesting
> > to increase the number of terms in comments. If a comment reads "Please see
> > ticket #x", it will still contain 4 terms once this is solved. It will
> > simply have an (extra) link on "ticket #x".
> 
> from a bugzilla code point of view we'd have to support more than a single
> term when looking for words that could be a reference to a bug ("bug",
> "ticket", "issue", "bug report", "issue report", ..).

A reference to a *ticket*, but otherwise, that much is quite obvious. What I asked is how much complexity David thinks this would require.

Note that I never asked to support "issue #x".
 
> > "RESOLVED" does not merely mean that "not further action will be taken
> > here"; it means the issue reported was resolved. A ticket should never be
> > RESOLVED/WONTFIX.
> 
> it's very common to find terms take on different meanings in different
> contexts; especially when comparing terms used in both conversational
> english and computer science.  we won't be changing more than a decade of
> established terminology to appease one person.

In computer science, resolving means translation domain names to IP addresses. "to resolve" does not have the meaning that "not further action will be taken here" in computer science, nor in any domain.
OED: Resolved: Decide firmly on a course of action: she resolved to call Dana as soon as she got home
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/resolve

We have firmly decided this course of action.

Other bugzilla sites could support bug synonyms, but we will not be doing that.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #10)
> Note that I never asked to support "issue #x".
Right, you asked for "issue report #x", see comment #0. However, in bug 519202 comment #13 you used "issue #x".
(In reply to Dylan William Hardison [:dylan] from comment #11)
> OED: Resolved: Decide firmly on a course of action: she resolved to call
> Dana as soon as she got home
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/resolve
> 
> We have firmly decided this course of action.

And what would this course of action be?
 
> Other bugzilla sites could support bug synonyms, but we will not be doing
> that.

"ticket" and "bug" are not synonyms.
Restrict Comments: true
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.