Closed Bug 286351 Opened 20 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Bugzilla::Flag::GetBug should go away in favor of using Bugzilla::Bug

Categories

(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, enhancement)

2.19.2
enhancement
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: mkanat, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

From Bugzilla::Flag, above the GetBug sub: # Ideally, we'd use Bug.pm, but it's way too heavyweight, and it can't be # made lighter without totally rewriting it, so we'll use this function # until that one gets rewritten. It's lighter, now. Time to use the Bug object.
Blocks: bz-majorarch
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.22
No longer blocks: bz-majorarch
Blocks: 288296
Depends on: 304699
The trunk is now frozen to prepare Bugzilla 2.22. Enhancement bugs are retargetted to 2.24.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.22 → Bugzilla 2.24
Assignee: attach-and-request → LpSolit
Whiteboard: [blocker will fix]
The bug object should already be passed to Flag.pm. Or even better, we should have a flags method bug objects: $bug->flags.
Assignee: LpSolit → attach-and-request
Whiteboard: [blocker will fix]
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.24 → ---
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(In reply to comment #2) > The bug object should already be passed to Flag.pm. Or even better, we should > have a flags method bug objects: $bug->flags. Yeah, $bug->flags sounds good. Why not do it in this bug?
(In reply to comment #3) > Yeah, $bug->flags sounds good. Why not do it in this bug? Because I thought you wanted to call Bugzilla::Bug from Flag.pm, with which I disagree. That's the reason I opened bug 339750. But yes, maybe I could have use this one.
(In reply to comment #4) > Because I thought you wanted to call Bugzilla::Bug from Flag.pm, with which I > disagree. That's the reason I opened bug 339750. But yes, maybe I could have > use this one. Okay, that sounds fine. Let's just leave things as they are.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.