Closed Bug 269294 Opened 20 years ago Closed 20 years ago

Do not mention QuickSearch in the error message if not in use

Categories

(Bugzilla :: User Interface, defect)

2.19.1
defect
Not set
minor

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18

People

(Reporter: LpSolit, Assigned: LpSolit)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 3 obsolete files)

When entering a invalid bug number or alias in the page footer (Find bug #), the
error message mentions QuickSearch and the fact that JavaScript should be enabled.
I misunderstood what QuickSearch was and I thought this textfield in the page
footer (Find bug #) *was* the QuickSearch feature, which is of course wrong.

I guess most users do not go to the quicksearch.html page and have no idea what
we are talking about here. As most of them already have JavaScript enabled, they
may not understand why Bugzilla is complaining.

What I suggest is to mention QuickSearch only when users submit a query from
quicksearch*.html pages.
Assignee: myk → LpSolit
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment on attachment 165642 [details] [diff] [review]
Mention QuickSearch only when appropriate

I think this is useful to not confuse users.
Attachment #165642 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Comment on attachment 165642 [details] [diff] [review]
Mention QuickSearch only when appropriate

The error message can be simplified a bit. New patch coming...
Attachment #165642 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Attachment #165642 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 165707 [details] [diff] [review]
Mention QuickSearch only when appropriate, v2

New attempt... :)
Attachment #165707 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Flags: blocking2.20?
Flags: blocking2.18?
Sounds good to me.  I always hated that error message.
Flags: blocking2.20?
Flags: blocking2.20+
Flags: blocking2.18?
Flags: blocking2.18+
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
wurblzap just wrote a patch to port QuickSearch to perl, this is bug 70907.
Until that bug get closed, we need to hide this error message about QuickSearch,
especially for the 2.18 branch. kiko suggested me a simple and clever way to do
this for the 2.18 branch where no too huge patches are expected right now. I
will first test his idea and submit later if this works. For 2.20, a more
complete solution may be investigated, assuming bug 70907 won't be checked in
too early.

CC'ing wurblzap so he can inform me about what is going on with his patch and
the consequences of it.
Depends on: 70907
Here is kiko's suggestion: add the comment about QuickSearch between <noscript>
and </noscript> tags. My tests show that quicksearch*.html generate an error
message only if JS is disabled. If enabled, these files simply return, in the
worst case, an empty list via buglist.cgi. Consequently, the warning about
QuickSearch is only pertinent when JS is disabled and these tags above seem
very appropriate here!

I think 99% of users have JS enabled in their browsers and should never see
that part of the error message, which is irrelevant for them. There is still 1%
of users who do not have JS enabled and among which a fraction of them do not
use quicksearch and so should not get this error message. But this fraction is
so small that it could be enough, even for the trunk, to use this very simple
solution.

Moreover, this error message should disappear as soon as bug 70907 get fixed
and maybe it not useful to spend more time on this.
Comment on attachment 166709 [details] [diff] [review]
Trivial solution for the 2.18 branch (and maybe the trunk?)

Simple fix for the 2.18 branch (and the trunk?)
Attachment #166709 - Flags: review?(vladd)
Comment on attachment 166709 [details] [diff] [review]
Trivial solution for the 2.18 branch (and maybe the trunk?)

This looks good (except its lack of identation).
Attachment #166709 - Flags: review?(vladd) → review+
Oooh, I like the latter one, let's go ahead and land it on both.  Bug 70907 will
have better ways to deal with the situation when it lands.
Blocks: 70907
No longer depends on: 70907
Flags: approval2.18+
Flags: approval+
Attachment #165707 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #165707 - Flags: review?(kiko)
Now with the correct indentation.
Attachment #166709 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #166741 - Flags: review?(vladd)
Comment on attachment 166741 [details] [diff] [review]
Trivial solution for the 2.18 branch and the trunk, v1.1

Nice to see identation for <noscript>, although [%IF Param("usebugaliases") %]
and the corresponding [% END %] are still not idented (unlike the original):

-    [% IF Param("usebugaliases") %]
-      It is neither [% terms.abug %] number nor an alias to [% terms.abug %]
-      number.
-    [% END %]
+    [% IF Param("usebugaliases") %] nor an alias
+    to [% terms.abug %] number[% END %].
Attachment #166741 - Flags: review?(vladd) → review+
(In reply to comment #13)
> (From update of attachment 166741 [details] [diff] [review])
> Nice to see identation for <noscript>, although [%IF Param("usebugaliases") %]
> and the corresponding [% END %] are still not idented (unlike the original)

This is because I write [%IF Param("usebugaliases") %] [% END %] "inline", not
as a block! :)
Checking in template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl,v
 <--  user-error.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.61.2.5; previous revision: 1.61.2.4
done

Checking in template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl,v
 <--  user-error.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.74; previous revision: 1.73
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
*** Bug 164522 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 149352 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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: