Move CheckFormField and CheckFormFieldDefined into Field.pm

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 2.22

Status

()

Bugzilla
Bugzilla-General
--
enhancement
RESOLVED FIXED
13 years ago
13 years ago

People

(Reporter: Frédéric Buclin, Assigned: Frédéric Buclin)

Tracking

2.21
Bugzilla 2.22
Bug Flags:
approval +

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 2 obsolete attachments)

11.53 KB, patch
Max Kanat-Alexander
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Assignee)

Description

13 years ago
These routines are used by post_bug.cgi and process_bug.cgi only.

Fields related stuff must go into the new Field.pm module.
(Assignee)

Updated

13 years ago
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.22
(Assignee)

Comment 1

13 years ago
Created attachment 189948 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1

Do we want to rename these routines to check_form_field and
check_form_field_defined?
Attachment #189948 - Flags: review?(mkanat)

Comment 2

13 years ago
Comment on attachment 189948 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1

Looks generally good on inspection, and the POD docs seem to have basically the
right structure.

There does need to be a =back at the end of each =head1 section.

Also, the function docs, since this is a new module, should be in our standard
Description/Params/Returns format. Product.pm is a pretty good example of this,
as I recall.

And yeah, we should rename the functions.

Eventually they will be methods of a Field object, but for now we'll just leave
them as they are.

Oh also, DESCRIPTION should probably be something more like, "Thi package
provides functions for dealing with CGI form fields."
Attachment #189948 - Flags: review?(mkanat) → review-
(Assignee)

Comment 3

13 years ago
Created attachment 189956 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2
Attachment #189948 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #189956 - Flags: review?(mkanat)
(Assignee)

Comment 4

13 years ago
Created attachment 189957 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2.1

Now that we have POD docs, comments are no longer required. :)
Attachment #189956 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #189957 - Flags: review?(mkanat)
(Assignee)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #189956 - Flags: review?(mkanat)

Comment 5

13 years ago
Comment on attachment 189957 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2.1

r=mkanat on inspection.
Attachment #189957 - Flags: review?(mkanat) → review+

Comment 6

13 years ago
Comment on attachment 189957 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2.1

OK, still needs testing.
Attachment #189957 - Flags: review+ → review?(mkanat)
(Assignee)

Comment 7

13 years ago
FYI, I did some additional testing using both post_bug.cgi and process_bug.cgi.
It works fine! :)

Comment 8

13 years ago
Comment on attachment 189957 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2.1

OK. I trust LpSolit's testing. :-)
Attachment #189957 - Flags: review?(mkanat) → review+
(Assignee)

Updated

13 years ago
Flags: approval?
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=189957) [edit]
> patch, v2.1
> 
> Now that we have POD docs, comments are no longer required. :)

On the contrary, POD docs are just another form of comments ;)  (just a little
more structured).
Flags: approval? → approval+
(Assignee)

Comment 10

13 years ago
Checking in CGI.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/CGI.pl,v  <--  CGI.pl
new revision: 1.250; previous revision: 1.249
done
Checking in post_bug.cgi;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi,v  <--  post_bug.cgi
new revision: 1.119; previous revision: 1.118
done
Checking in process_bug.cgi;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi,v  <--  process_bug.cgi
new revision: 1.266; previous revision: 1.265
done
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/Field.pm,v
done
Checking in Bugzilla/Field.pm;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/Field.pm,v  <--  Field.pm
initial revision: 1.1
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.