Closed Bug 192218 Opened 22 years ago Closed 20 years ago

Need a way to filter specifically for requests with no requestee

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, defect)

2.17.3
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Bugzilla 2.20

People

(Reporter: justdave, Assigned: LpSolit)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files, 3 obsolete files)

Currently the only way to do this is grab all requestees and sort by requestee
so you get them grouped at the top.  It would be nice to have a way to query for
only requests with no requestee.
Assignee: myk → LpSolit
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
For backward compatibility, an empty requestee field considers everything,
including requests with no requestee (nothing is specified, so take
everything).
Writing "*" (without quotes) specifically considers requests with no requestee
(* usually means anything, but here in the sense anybody not explicitly
defined, i.e. no requestee).
Comment on attachment 162911 [details] [diff] [review]
use "*" for requests from the wild

simple patch
Attachment #162911 - Flags: review?(myk)
I really don't like the *...  it sounds like a wildcard.  How about a hyphen (or
two or three?)  We use that convention already elsewhere in Bugzilla (for no
resolution, no priority, no target milestone, etc)
(In reply to comment #3)
> I really don't like the *...  it sounds like a wildcard.  How about a hyphen (or
> two or three?)

I don't like it either.

Then, why not a checkbox under the requestee textbox named "No requestee"? If
checked, the requestee field would be grayed.

Adding myk to the CC list as I asked him to review my patch.
replacing "*" by a hyphen "-" and adding a tool tip so that users have a chance
to know that this option now exists. For consistency, I also add a tool tip to
the requester field.

myk suggests that if this feature becomes popular, we could later add a
checkbox making it more accessible.
Attachment #162911 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #163061 - Flags: review?(myk)
Attachment #162911 - Flags: review?(myk)
Comment on attachment 163061 [details] [diff] [review]
use a hyphen for requests with no requestee + tool tip

>Index: mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/request.cgi

>+        if ($cgi->param('requestee') ne "-") {
>+            push(@criteria, "requestees.login_name = " . SqlQuote($cgi->param('requestee')));
>+        }
>+        else { push(@criteria, "flags.requestee_id IS NULL") }

Nit: when the "if" execution block of an "if-else" statement resides on its own
indented lines, the statement is easier for me to read if the "else" execution
block also resides on its own indented lines, even if it's short.  Otherwise my
eyes tend to gloss over and miss the else block entirely, and I suppose other
Bugzilla coders may do the same.


>Index: mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/request/queue.html.tmpl

>-      <td><input type="text" name="requester" value="[% cgi.param('requester') FILTER html %]" size="20"></td>
>+      <td><input type="text" name="requester" value="[% cgi.param('requester') FILTER html %]" size="20" title="Requester's email address"></td>

>-      <td><input type="text" name="requestee" value="[% cgi.param('requestee') FILTER html %]" size="20"></td>
>+      <td><input type="text" name="requestee" value="[% cgi.param('requestee') FILTER html %]" size="20" title="Requestee's email address or ''-'' (hyphen) for requests with no requestee"></td>

Nit: these lines would be better off wrapped, and the quotes around the hyphen
would be better inserted with &quot; instead of using two single-quotes.

Otherwise this looks good, and all issues nits, so r=myk.
Attachment #163061 - Flags: review?(myk) → review+
same patch as before, using &quot; and wrapping long lines.
Flags: approval?
Comment on attachment 163067 [details] [diff] [review]
use a hyphen for requests with no requestee + tool tip, v1.1

>+      <td><input type="text" name="requester" value="[% cgi.param('requester') FILTER html %]" size="20" 
>+           title="Requester's email address"></td>

Minor nit: Bugzilla code generally lines up wrapped attributes with the
attributes on the previous line, i.e.:

+      <td><input type="text" name="requester" value="[% cgi.param('requester')
FILTER html %]" size="20" 
+		  title="Requester's email address"></td>
Attachment #163067 - Flags: review+
This is a nice low-risk fix that would be good to go into 2.20.
Flags: approval? → approval+
Attachment #163061 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.20
Since it seems the whole file could use some identation clean-up, I left myk's
minor nit for another patch.

Checking in request.cgi;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/request.cgi,v  <--  request.cgi
new revision: 1.16; previous revision: 1.15
done
Checking in template/en/default/request/queue.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/request/queue.html.tmpl,v
 <--  queue.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Flags: documentation?
Flags: documentation2.20?
Attached patch docs patch for 2.20 v1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
it seems no docs for searching flags so that will be needed but isn't this bug.
Attachment #207862 - Flags: review?(documentation)
Comment on attachment 207862 [details] [diff] [review]
docs patch for 2.20 v1

you need a blank line between </para> and <para>.

> Open flags those requester/requestee is you can be seen from 'My Requests' on the footer. 

This is not an English sentence.

You can browse through open requests made of you and by you by selecting 'My Requests' from the footer. 

XXX what if the footer is actually not the footer?

> You can also query other requester / requestee from this page. 

Don't use "query", try "browse" or "search"

Something like:
You can also look at open requests limited by other requesters, requestees, products, components, and flag names from this page. 

> Note that you can use '-' for requestee to specify flags those are 'no requestee' set. 

Change "those are" to "with"
Attachment #207862 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review-
take timely's comment
Attachment #207862 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #211893 - Flags: review?(documentation)
Attachment #211893 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
Documentation:

tip:

Checking in docs/xml/using.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/using.xml,v  <--  using.xml
new revision: 1.37; previous revision: 1.36
done

2.20:

Checking in docs/xml/using.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/using.xml,v  <--  using.xml
new revision: 1.33.2.3; previous revision: 1.33.2.2
done
Flags: documentation?
Flags: documentation2.20?
Flags: documentation2.20+
Flags: documentation+
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: