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)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.16
People
(Reporter: bbaetz, Assigned: bbaetz)
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
988 bytes,
patch
|
myk
:
review+
myk
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
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.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•24 years ago
|
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 1•24 years ago
|
||
![]() |
Assignee | |
Updated•24 years ago
|
Comment 2•24 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 75695 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
r= justdave x2
Attachment #75695 -
Flags: review+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 3•24 years ago
|
||
Checked in, thanks
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 4•24 years ago
|
||
This may be more performant with a map:
$vars->{'buglist'} = join(',', map($_->{id}, @bugs));
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 6•24 years ago
|
||
>wouldn't that mean scanning through the bug aray again?
Yes, but it would happen in compiled code instead of interpreted code.
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 7•24 years ago
|
||
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 → ---
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 8•24 years ago
|
||
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 9•24 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 76920 [details] [diff] [review]
new patch
Works. r=myk x 2
Attachment #76920 -
Flags: review+
![]() |
Assignee | |
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
Fixed.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago → 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•13 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•