Closed Bug 234875 Opened 22 years ago Closed 22 years ago

Use $cgi->param in quips.cgi

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)

2.17.6
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18

People

(Reporter: goobix, Assigned: goobix)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 2 obsolete files)

Eliminate obsolete %FORM vars from quips.cgi.
Attached patch Version 1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #141736 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #141736 - Flags: review?(jouni)
Comment on attachment 141736 [details] [diff] [review] Version 1 r=jouni
Attachment #141736 - Flags: review?(jouni) → review+
Comment on attachment 141736 [details] [diff] [review] Version 1 >@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ >- my $form = ($::FORM{'quipid_'.$quipid}) ? 1 : 0; >+ my $form = ($cgi->param('quipid_'.$quipid)) ? 1 : 0; This isn't going to do what you think it is. Wrapping $cgi->param() in parens tells it to return a list of the values for that param (since you can have a param mentioned more than once in your query string). You'll get an array returned here, and your ? comparison will then be testing true/falseness based on the length of the array rather than the value of the first item. I suggest: my $form = scalar($cgi->param('quipid_'.$quipid)) ? 1 : 0; which will guarantee that you get scalar results instead of a list.
Attachment #141736 - Flags: review?(kiko) → review-
Actually, in this situation, having it without the parens around it at all would probably work fine, too.
Just for reference: 11:12 <@jth> justdave: It seems that |cgi->param('foo')| returns undef when the param doesn't exist in both list and scalar context. 11:12 <@justdave> yes. 11:13 <@justdave> but a scalar undef gets passed as a param 11:13 <@justdave> an undef list doesn't get passed. 11:13 <@justdave> (because it's a list of zero params) 11:13 <@jth> Yeah. Anyway, that's why Vlad's code worked... It still might be a good idea to clarify this by removing the extra parenthesis.
Comment on attachment 141736 [details] [diff] [review] Version 1 ok, I'm going to recind my negative review... jouni and I worked it out in IRC... what I said is accurate, but you can get away with it here only because we're looking at checkboxes. :) If it wasn't checked, it doesn't get passed, and an empty list counts as false when doing a boolean comparison. :) So whether you want to clean that up so it's not ambiguous is up to you, but the code does actually work.
Attachment #141736 - Flags: review-
I'd rather have it without parenthesis if they are unnecessary.
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Attached patch Version 2Splinter Review
Removes the extra paranthesis.
Attachment #141736 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #142611 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Would that be written more clearly as "defined $cgi->..."?
I haven't checked the code, but there exists a possibility that the original code makes a difference between 0 and undefined. Keeping it in the actual format seems safe.
I'm worried that a quip with an id of zero would cause problems, and that's why I'm asking.
Attachment #142611 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Attached patch Version 3 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
True, sounds safe this way.
Attachment #142611 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #142630 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Flags: approval?
Comment on attachment 142611 [details] [diff] [review] Version 2 I looked at quips.cgi to see how this works; I think this version is "more correct" given that quipid_XXX is a checkbox, not something that equals an ID. That hash there is kinda confusing :-)
Attachment #142611 - Attachment is obsolete: false
Attachment #142611 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 142630 [details] [diff] [review] Version 3 Don't use this one. :)
Attachment #142630 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #142630 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Flags: approval? → approval+
Checking in quips.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/quips.cgi,v <-- quips.cgi new revision: 1.22; previous revision: 1.21 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 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

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: