Closed Bug 132929 Opened 24 years ago Closed 24 years ago

buglist.cgi "long format" button doesn't work

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Query/Bug List, defect, P1)

2.15
x86
Linux
defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Bugzilla 2.16

People

(Reporter: bbaetz, Assigned: bbaetz)

Details

(Keywords: regression)

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

From npm.webtools: "From: Tony Sweets <aredc5NO_SPAM@netscape.net> Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.webtools Subject: long_list.cgi Problems Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:38:50 -0700 Hello All I have the current Bugzilla (2.15) code from CVS and I'm having a problem with the "Long Format" report. If I do a query, then hit the "Long Format" Button after my query results appear, an error occurs. The error message says "You'd have more luck if you gave me some bug numbers" I've looked around the code (I'm not a Perl Programmer! I'm a Java Guy) and I can't find where $buglist is getting assigned values for this perticular situation. I've notice that the cookie "BUGLIST" is populated . So my quick solution was to append $::COOKIE{"BUGLIST"} to the $buglist array at line 63 in long_list.cgi This works, but I'm sure if this a valid or if it breaks anything. --Tony " Thats not valid - we need to push $vars->{buglist} to the template so that its in the form. The actual template already tries to us ethis param, but the cgi never supplies it. Patch coming.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Keywords: regression
Priority: -- → P1
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
Attached patch patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Keywords: patch, review
Comment on attachment 75695 [details] [diff] [review] patch r= justdave x2
Attachment #75695 - Flags: review+
Checked in, thanks
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
This may be more performant with a map: $vars->{'buglist'} = join(',', map($_->{id}, @bugs));
wouldn't that mean scanning through the bug aray again? Although I suspect it wouldn't make a difference with the number of bugs returned by buglist.cgi.
>wouldn't that mean scanning through the bug aray again? Yes, but it would happen in compiled code instead of interpreted code.
I don't follow that - which part of it would be compiled to byte code vs interpreted? However, your way is cleaner, so I'll reopen this and attach a new patch
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Attached patch new patchSplinter Review
I thought of having the template do this, but thats messy, because the footer and the stuff for each bug aren't in the same template.
Attachment #75695 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 76920 [details] [diff] [review] new patch Works. r=myk x 2
Attachment #76920 - Flags: review+
Fixed.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: