Closed
Bug 235278
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Userprefs.cgi param conversion
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: goobix, Assigned: goobix)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 4 obsolete files)
6.80 KB,
patch
|
kiko
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Use the CGI methods in userprefs.cgi for cookie/param retrival, according to the guidelines in the dependency.
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
Assignee: justdave → vlad
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #142020 -
Flags: review?(preed)
Comment 2•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 142020 [details] [diff] [review] Version 1 >+ my $pwd1 = Bugzilla->cgi->param('new_password1'); >+ my $pwd2 = Bugzilla->cgi->param('new_password2'); We're using this in far too many places. It would look much cleaner (and probably be more efficient) to assign Bugzilla->cgi to $cgi at the top of each scope that's using it. >@@ -227,14 +231,16 @@ >- if (Param("supportwatchers") && exists $::FORM{'watchedusers'}) { >+ if (Param("supportwatchers") && exists >+ Bugzilla->cgi->param('watchedusers')) { $cgi->param() is not a hash, so you can't use exists on it. defined should work okay here.
Attachment #142020 -
Flags: review?(preed) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the fast review!
Attachment #142020 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #142050 -
Flags: review?(timeless)
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 142050 [details] [diff] [review] Version 2 r=kiko, with a few non-blocking comments below. >Index: userprefs.cgi ThrowUserError("passwords_dont_match"); >- $::FORM{'new_password1'} || ThrowUserError("new_password_missing"); >+ $cgi->param('new_password1') >+ || ThrowUserError("new_password_missing"); Does this *really* need a linebreak? :-) FlagRequester)) { >- $updateString .= "~$flag~" . (defined($::FORM{$flag}) ? "on" : ""); >+ $updateString .= "~$flag~" . >+ (defined($cgi->param($flag)) ? "on" : ""); I'm not used to seeing defined with parenthesis, but since this is the way it was.. >@@ -227,14 +233,14 @@ > > # If the form field for this preference is defined, then we > # know the checkbox was checked, so set the value to "on". >- $updateString .= "on" if defined $::FORM{"email$role$reason"}; >+ $updateString .= "on" if defined $cgi->param("email$role$reason"); Hmm. I wonder if this was a bug originally, since AFAIK you're supposed to check for exists with hashes, right?
Attachment #142050 -
Flags: review?(timeless) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4) > >+ $cgi->param('new_password1') > >+ || ThrowUserError("new_password_missing"); > > Does this *really* need a linebreak? :-) Yes, in this case. Without it it takes 83 chars. > >- $updateString .= "~$flag~" . (defined($::FORM{$flag}) ? "on" : ""); > >+ $updateString .= "~$flag~" . > >+ (defined($cgi->param($flag)) ? "on" : ""); > > I'm not used to seeing defined with parenthesis, but since this is the way it > was.. I removed the parenthesis. And in this case the extra line is not required, indeed. :-) > Hmm. I wonder if this was a bug originally, since AFAIK you're supposed to > check for exists with hashes, right? Yeap. Seems like it.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #142050 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #142615 -
Flags: review?(kiko)
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5) > > >+ $updateString .= "~$flag~" . > > >+ (defined($cgi->param($flag)) ? "on" : ""); > > > > I'm not used to seeing defined with parenthesis, but since this is the way it > > was.. > > I removed the parenthesis. And in this case the extra line is not required, > indeed. :-) Actually, I meant the parenthesis *to* defined: (defined($::FORM{$flag}) ? ... ) -> (defined $::FORM($flag) ? ... ) As long as it works, r=kiko. Go seek approval :-)
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: approval?
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #142615 -
Flags: review?(kiko)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Ok, you're right. The "." operator has a greater priority than the "?" operator; in fact "?" has one of the lowest priorities, AFAIK. Version 4. Tested. It works. :-)
Attachment #142615 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #142627 -
Flags: review?(kiko)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #142627 -
Flags: review?(kiko) → review+
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 142627 [details] [diff] [review] Version 4 >-$vars->{'login'} = $::COOKIE{'Bugzilla_login'}; >+$vars->{'login'} = $cgi->cookie('Bugzilla_login'); Don't use the Bugzilla_login cookie. Nothing anywhere in Bugzilla (with the exception of the Bugzilla::Auth::* modules) should care that it exists. The template can access it from the global user object as [% user.login %].
Attachment #142627 -
Flags: review-
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: approval?
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
Ho hum. Vlad, you might need to check other patches for that too :)
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
Places apart from userprefs.cgi where $::COOKIE{'Bugzilla_login'} is still in use: attachment.cgi buglist.cgi post_bug.cgi enter_bug.cgi process_bug.cgi move.pl (and there's access to the global COOKIE there, in query.cgi and show_bug.cgi too). Should bugs be open to clean that up? As for Bugzilla_logincookie, I'm supposed to fix direct access to that in bug 226754.
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 142627 [details] [diff] [review] Version 4 ok, since that's covered by another bug, let's do this. :)
Attachment #142627 -
Flags: review-
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: approval+
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
Filed bug 236678 on the COOKIE cleanup.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #142627 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #143137 -
Flags: review?(kiko)
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 143137 [details] [diff] [review] Version 5 great! you just conflicted me with my patch to bug 226754!
Attachment #143137 -
Flags: review?(kiko) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
Checking in userprefs.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi,v <-- userprefs.cgi new revision: 1.53; previous revision: 1.52 done Checking in template/en/default/account/prefs/prefs.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/account/prefs/prefs.html.tmpl,v <-- prefs.html.tmpl new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
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
•