Closed
Bug 307328
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
show_bug.cgi?ctype=xml should allow the option of including flags
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)
Bugzilla
Bugzilla-General
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.22
People
(Reporter: ian.roberts, Assigned: gregaryh)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
2.40 KB,
patch
|
LpSolit
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Build Identifier:
It would be useful if the newly added flags feature was accessable in the xml
of a bug.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create or find bug and with flag set on it.
2. Get the xml for that bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?
id=302669&ctype=xml
3. XML does not include flag - the DTD does not have any obvious provision for
flags so I guess the DTD would need to be extended.
Actual Results:
No Flag data in XML
Expected Results:
Data relating to flags in XML.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Assignee: general → ghendricks
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Need to add flag data to bugzilla DTD and to importxml.pl.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
This includes a number of addtions to come up to date with the dtd
Attachment #195794 -
Flags: review?(myk)
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #195794 -
Flags: review?(myk)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Changed field order to match dtd
Attachment #195794 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #195809 -
Flags: review?(myk)
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: Blocker will fix
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
Fixed per live review:
<LpSolit> <long_desc isprivate="[% IF c.isprivate %]1[% ELSE %]0[% END %]"> can be reduced to <long_desc isprivate="[% c.isprivate FILTER xml %]">
<ghendricks> cool
<LpSolit> ghendricks: why all these [% IF a.isprivate %]isprivate="1"[% END %] ?
<LpSolit> ghendricks: isprivate="[% a.isprivate FILTER xml %]"
<LpSolit> ghendricks: I think importxml.pl should support having isprivate="0"
<ghendricks> it does
<LpSolit> the cleaner the code, the easier to debug it ;)
<ghendricks> or rather it checks for isprivate=1
<LpSolit> ghendricks: you replace <ctype> by <type>; do you really want this change?
<LpSolit> <attachment
<LpSolit> isobsolete="0"
<LpSolit> ispatch="1"
<LpSolit> isprivate="0"
<LpSolit> >
<LpSolit> ghendricks: I don't know what you think, but having these attributes displayed in all cases really makes sense
<LpSolit> ghendricks: this way you are sure they are 0
<LpSolit> ghendricks: a missing attribute doesn't tell you if it's really the case
<ghendricks> LpSolit: agreed
<ghendricks> ok, I will make those changes
<ghendricks> LpSolit: the <ctype> to <type> was made in the dtd
<ghendricks> this change is to make sure in conforms
<LpSolit> <attachment
<LpSolit> isobsolete="[% a.isobsolete FILTER xml %]"
<LpSolit> ispatch="[% a.ispatch FILTER xml %]"
<LpSolit> isprivate="[% a.isprivate FILTER xml %]"
<LpSolit> >
<LpSolit> ghendricks: this is what I wrote; works fine
<ghendricks> good
<LpSolit> ghendricks: I have a nit:
<ghendricks> are you going to go ahead and merge these into your patch then?
<LpSolit> [% FOREACH type = bug.flag_types %]
<LpSolit> [% FOREACH flag = type.flags %]
<LpSolit> <flag name="[% type.name FILTER xml %]"
<LpSolit> the indentation of <flag is incorrect
<LpSolit> ghendricks: your patch is ok for checkin; I will update mine accordingly
<LpSolit> ghendricks: update your patch and I will r+ it
<LpSolit> ghendricks: include these changes in your patch
<ghendricks> ok
Attachment #195809 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #202109 -
Flags: review?(LpSolit)
Attachment #195809 -
Flags: review?(myk)
![]() |
||
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 202109 [details] [diff] [review]
v3
r=LpSolit
Attachment #202109 -
Flags: review?(LpSolit) → review+
![]() |
||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Severity: enhancement → normal
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: approval?
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.22
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
ghendricks and lpsolit have both pointed out that without this patch importxml.pl's usefulness is seriously compromised. That, plus the relatively simple nature of the patch, justifies taking this during the freeze for 2.22.
But note that at least one part of this patch conflicts with the patch for bug 315157, so coordinate checkin with that patch.
Flags: approval? → approval+
![]() |
||
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
Checking in template/en/default/bug/show.xml.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/show.xml.tmpl,v <-- show.xml.tmpl
new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•