Closed
Bug 284896
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
QA contact never receives mail when removed from a bug
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Email Notifications, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: bugzilla-mozilla, Assigned: bugzilla-mozilla)
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
1.26 KB,
patch
|
Wurblzap
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
1.30 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
When reassigning a bug, the QA contact never receives an email. This is NOT due
to some email setting.
In post_bug.cgi it sets {'mailrecipients'}->{'qa'}.
In process_bug.cgi it sets 'qa'. The mailrecipients is passed on to SendBugMail
in the bug/process/bugmail.html.tmpl. SendBugMail refers to the function Send
(in Bugzilla/BugMail.pm).
The Send function checks for 'qacontact', not 'qa'. It therefore sets
$force{'QAcontact'} to () instead of the original QA contact.
Patch modifies post_bug.cgi and process_bug.cgi to use 'qacontact'. I decided to
change those files instead of Bugzilla/BugMail.pm to not change how the Send
function works.
Note: From a quick look this bug is also in Bugzilla 2.18.| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #176367 -
Flags: review?
| Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking2.18.1?
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 176367 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 Good catch. Nit: next time, please keep the line length below 80 chars :)
Attachment #176367 -
Flags: review? → review+
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
The patch doesn't apply to the 2.18 branch. It seems like an easy backport to me -- if you can do it, can you please put up a branch patch and put r+ on it?
Assignee: email-notifications → bugzilla-mozilla
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
I added the wrapping, but however I wrap it;
DBID_to_name($::FORM{'qa_contact'}) wholly on a new line, or only
$::FORM{'qa_contact'}, it looks strange (maybe that's just me).
Attachment #176621 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval2.18?
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #176621 -
Flags: review+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking2.18.1?
Flags: blocking2.18.1+
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval2.18?
Flags: approval2.18+
Flags: approval+
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Your patch doesn't apply against 2.18 at all; this is probably because it wasn't taken against the 2.18 branch. (If it were, the revision numbers would be x.x.x.x instead of just the x.x of the trunk/tip.) Here is the patch I committed, properly diffed against a 2.18 installation.
Attachment #176621 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
2.18: Checking in post_bug.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi,v <-- post_bug.cgi new revision: 1.88.2.6; previous revision: 1.88.2.5 done Checking in process_bug.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi,v <-- process_bug.cgi new revision: 1.205.2.15; previous revision: 1.205.2.14 done Tip: Checking in post_bug.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi,v <-- post_bug.cgi new revision: 1.106; previous revision: 1.105 done Checking in process_bug.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi,v <-- process_bug.cgi new revision: 1.241; previous revision: 1.240 done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [applied to b.m.o]
Updated•19 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [applied to b.m.o]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•