Additional level of categorization: sub-component
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: myk, Unassigned)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
44.43 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
38.50 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Bugzilla should allow a third level of categorization besides just product and component. This might be called "sub-component" in the database, but could be called something else in the interface using the standard available customizations.
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
I think that if we did this, the best way to handle this in the db would be to remove the 'product' from the bugs table, and only use 'component'. Now that we have ids, this would then be unique for all components, even those with the same name, but different products. The 'interesting' part will be refactoring the midair code to deal with changes to components needing reorgs, not just products, and having two layers of component selection when a product changes in a bug. Not to mention keeping stuff as-is for existing installations.
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
If component IDs are unique across products, I don't see why product needs to be a field in bugs, regardless of this RFE.
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
After re-reading bug 43940 I have half a mind to mark this a duplicate. We're proposing two ways of accomplishing the same thing, and if one of them gets fixed, the other one is an automatic wontfix. Should we just be discussing which method is better all on the same bug?
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
OK, on further discussion on IRC, these aren't quite conflicting. Resolving 173133 won't automatically wontfix 43940. The other way around might. However, this bug was filed because it was on the list of features Zippy wants, and what it sounds like Zippy actually wants is another level above product, not one below component. Which would make this more along the lines of what it appears bug 174298 is turning into, and likely easier to implement.
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
mattyt: Its simpler that way, since it avoids an extra sql query. Can we get a use case from Zippy? If they're happy with what gerv is doing, I'd really prefer that
Comment 7•22 years ago
|
||
> Its simpler that way, since it avoids an extra sql query.
What sort of query? AFAICT there would not be any difference, except possibly
you need to join to the components table if you join to the products table, but
you often would be anyway, plus it's a simple index lookup.
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
At long last, here's a preliminary attempt to port the 3rd-level category changes that we did for Zippy back into Bugzilla. This patch is somewhat incomplete... this was compiled from a list of checkins related to it that I kept in a note file here, and I'm pretty sure there's a few important pieces missing here beside the editcomponents.cgi file, which is also not included here yet. (I'm tired, and that's the one file I didn't get done screwing with yet, and wanted to give Mike a chance to play with what I've done so far :) I will continue on this tomorrow at some point and see if I can fill in the rest of the pieces.
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
thanks Dave. i'm currently playing with it. woo hoo! that's one massive patch. more to come after i get it running. =P
Comment 10•21 years ago
|
||
small typo. not done playing w/ it yet, though. more to come. :D
Comment 11•21 years ago
|
||
At last, the long lost missing piece of the original patch. Oy, what a hack. :) But it seems to work. Would be really niced if this was templatized, but it's not.
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
Is this something I can patch to 2.17.4 as is and upgrade from 2.16.3? And will I be able to easily upgrade to 2.18 with my existing database? Thanks, Albert
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
We successfully patched 2.17.4 but there are some missing files and some minor syntax errors. I am tasked with recontributing our resulting source, and will as soon as I can. But yes, you can patch it to 2.17.4 pretty easily, but it'll take a lot of time to do if you use what currently exists -- what I submit will help you save time. When do you think you would need it by, Albert? I could have the diffs up here in a couple of weeks. Your 2.16.3 question would be best answered by someone else.
Comment 14•21 years ago
|
||
A couple weeks would work for me. I figure I need to first upgrade to 2.17.4 before trying this patch. My main concern is that the database structure for this bug is marked frozen for 2.18. I'm also assuming one can "easily" move the existing 2-tier products/components to fit into the new 3-tier structure?
Comment 15•21 years ago
|
||
the 3-tier structure is an addendum that doesn't require modification of existing structures. as for the continuity of the db schema between 2.17.4 and 2.18, i'd ask that question on irc for a speedy answer (irc://mozwebtools@irc.mozilla.org). i'll try to get on that resubmission so you can have a patch ready by the time you are done upgrading to 2.17.4.
Comment 16•21 years ago
|
||
yeah, the way it was originally specced out, the bottom level is optional, and if a component doesn't have any subcomponents defined, then it just ignores them. So this would basically add the capability to add subcomponents under your existing components, if you wanted to.
Comment 17•21 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the speedy responses. Is it possible to push an existing product/component down a level? So instead of FOO->BAR product/component, I'd like to move it to PROD->FOO->BAR.
Comment 18•21 years ago
|
||
I've been looking at the db schema and realize this may not meet what I was hoping for. While I'd like three levels, I'm looking for a higher "department" level rather than a lower "subcomponent" level. It's subtle, but the key difference is that the version field is tied to the "product" level, which I was going to treat as the "department" level. Hence the version field won't work that well. I had considered using creating separate databases for each department and use the movebugs approach. But that's cumbersome for us, as we'd like easily move/manage all bugs without having to deal with multiple logins, etc. It would seem a department table that just had the name and product_id's would be sufficient. On a different note, this patch assumes the same set of data fields for both subcomponent and component. Enhancement requests such as bug #38922 will have to be updated accordingly.
Comment 19•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 196489 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20•21 years ago
|
||
What happens when someone wants a 4th and 5th level? Perhaps we should do this in a way that allows an arbitrary number of levels that the admin decides, each one being named by the admin?
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
Regarding comment #18, I've implemented a "parent-product" level. See bug #224208 for more info.
Comment 22•20 years ago
|
||
Any objections to marking this (idle) bug as a duplicate of the (active) bug 224208?
Comment 23•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #22) > Any objections to marking this (idle) bug as a duplicate of the (active) bug 24208? I'd agree with Joel that this could probably be resolved as a DUPE, now that we have classifications. Do classifications provide all that this bug wants?
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #22) > > Any objections to marking this (idle) bug as a duplicate of the (active) bug > 24208? > > I'd agree with Joel that this could probably be resolved as a DUPE, now that > we have classifications. Do classifications provide all that this bug wants? No. This bug wants subcomponents (level below components). Although having categories will help some of the folks who originally wanted this, it's still a separate concept.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Comment 25•19 years ago
|
||
Reassigning bugs that I'm not actively working on to the default component owner in order to try to make some sanity out of my personal buglist. This doesn't mean the bug isn't being dealt with, just that I'm not the one doing it. If you are dealing with this bug, please assign it to yourself.
Comment 26•5 years ago
|
||
This won’t happen since we already have 3 levels of categorization: Classifications, Products and Components. Basically we should use more Classifications.
Comment 27•4 years ago
•
|
||
(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] from comment #26)
This won’t happen since we already have 3 levels of categorization: Classifications, Products and Components. Basically we should use more Classifications.
So if we want to have optional subcomponents in LibreOffice we should
- move our Products to Classifications
- move our Components to Products
- populate Components with new categories
- be able to make Components not be a required field (is this possible currently?)
- update all the queries in our technical documentation due to the move operation
People would then start the reporting process by selecting a classification (I see this is how Red Hat does it).
Any tips on how to achieve this sort of a change and to avoid problems? The crucial thing is that Components then need to be optional, not required. Would this require hacking the BZ core?
We would possibly also want to allow multiple components per report, a functionality which was WONTFIXed in bug 178303. In the closed report, it is said that "you can use a custom multi-select field to implement this, if you really need to" - is there any reference implementation of this available?
Comment 28•4 years ago
|
||
Then you can probably use keywords instead, which can be optional and multiple. Some GitHub repositories use labels to do the same thing. See my BzDeck repo for example. The current UX of Bugzilla keywords is not great though.
Comment 29•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] from comment #28)
Then you can probably use keywords instead, which can be optional and multiple. Some GitHub repositories use labels to do the same thing. See my BzDeck repo for example. The current UX of Bugzilla keywords is not great though.
Hmm, thinking further, I would probably drop the requirement for multiple components per report and use meta bugs for any "global" categories. We want to keep the keywords to a minimum to avoid confusion. From the bug input UI perspective, it is more valuable to have a parent-child relationship for products + components.
The main motivation is the awkward, completely disconnected user experience of finding a relevant meta bug and then add it to Blocks. Thus a neat hierarchy is desired. Of course it would need a (local) rework of the Components UI element, turning it into a filterable list in bug creation/editing and searching.
Description
•