Closed
Bug 192571
Opened 22 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Empty default owner (assignee or QA) causes "Reassign bug to owner and QA contact of selected component to NOOP
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, defect)
Bugzilla
Creating/Changing Bugs
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: benc, Assigned: timeless)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
2.08 KB,
patch
|
justdave
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Based on Bug 107310, the default QA of Image Blocking was set to "" (I didn't know you could do this...) OBSERVED: When you are in Image Blocking bug, and you set the default owner and QA to the default via the radio buttons above submit, you get no change to the QA. EXPECTED: Should set it to "". NOTE: I don't think you should be allowed to set the values to "", I think we should be creating placeholders if necessary.
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
By design, Bugzilla allows empty QA contacts, because not all products/components have them (some of the Webtools components come to mind). Forcing everyone to have them would be a policy decision and would be up to mozilla.org to set it that way for that component. This means the proper fix here is to make "set to defaults" clear the QA contact if the component doesn't have one.
OS: Windows 98 → All
Hardware: PC → All
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
Sigh. Bring on custom mail fields! :)
Updated•22 years ago
|
Severity: major → normal
Summary: Empty default owner (assignee or QA) causes "Reassign bug to owner and QA contact of selected component " to NOOP → Empty default owner (assignee or QA) causes "Reassign bug to owner and QA contact of selected component to NOOP
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 225104 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 226679 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Because of the new b.m.o default owner scheme, we have a lot of components that have empty QA fields. When I transfer bugs to these components, and I reset the ownerships to default, I still get stuck owning the bug because the "" doesn't over-write the current value. This behavior is either: creating a lot of extra bugmail, as people have to make two changes (and assign to nobody@mozilla.org the second time) -or- Not clearing the fields, which leaves a lot of people stuck w/ bugs they should not QA own. Is this something where the database doesn't handle a change to NULL, or something in the processing cgi?
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
yeah, it's a CGI problem. The CGI assumes if you didn't submit one, you didn't intend to change it.
Is related to this commnet? http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi#1127 1127 # Consider NULL db entries to be equivalent to the empty string So, currently, the only way a field could get created as empty is because when we create the bug, the product/component lookup simply doesn't write anything to owner/qa if it is empty? Besides that, it doesn't seem like any operation can actually put "" into a field. It also seems like it is impossible to assign bug ownership to "", because of; http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi#906 906 if (!defined$::FORM{'assigned_to'} || 907 trim($::FORM{'assigned_to'}) eq "") { 908 ThrowUserError("reassign_to_empty"); But it sounds like there might be no place that the cgi's actually write "" to existing field entries.
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7) > Is related to this commnet? > > http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi#1127 > > 1127 # Consider NULL db entries to be equivalent to the empty string No, this is actually unrelated. > It also seems like it is impossible to assign bug ownership to "", because of; > > http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi#906 > 906 if (!defined$::FORM{'assigned_to'} || > 907 trim($::FORM{'assigned_to'}) eq "") { > 908 ThrowUserError("reassign_to_empty"); > > But it sounds like there might be no place that the cgi's actually write "" to > existing field entries. That is correct. Assignee shouldn't ever be able to be blank. What we really need to do is allow QA Contact to be blank (because it's allowed to be, you just can't set it that way because it assumes the "assign to default" if you do that).
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.18 → Bugzilla 2.20
Attachment #146747 -
Flags: review?(justdave)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
bmo now has many components w/o qa contacts. reassigning to defaults is failing much more often today than in the past. we really should get this fixed for 2.18
Flags: blocking2.18?
Flags: approval?
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 146747 [details] [diff] [review] support zeroing the qa contact while reassigning ooof. We actually allow this? Ah well, this'll work for now, we can fix the referential integrity problems this'll create in another bug, it's not worth fixing as part of this one. (The lack of a QA Contact should really be NULL, not 0, since there's no user with a userid of 0, but we have NOT NULL set on the qacontact field at the moment, which kind of prevents that...)
Attachment #146747 -
Flags: review?(justdave) → review+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking2.18?
Flags: blocking2.18+
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.20 → Bugzilla 2.18
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [applied to b.m.o]
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi 1.203
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [applied to b.m.o]
Updated•12 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
•