Closed Bug 308950 Opened 15 years ago Closed 13 years ago
RFE: Add build-id URL parameter to guided enter bug page (for non-browser products)
Currently for non-browser products (thunderbird, sunbird, etc.) there is no way to autofill the build-id field of the guided enter-bug page. The result is many bug reports with no version or build id for the product in question. Suggest: the guided enter-bug page accept a &buildid= URL parameter and fill the build-id field from this parameter. With this parameter, non-browser products (or an extension for them) could include a "report bug" button (say, on the about page), that opens an external browser using the URL of the guided enter bug page for the appropriate product, and including the current build-id (userAgent) urlencoded in the URL parameter. Thunderbird guided enter bug page: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Thunderbird&format=guided Calendar/Sunbird guided enter bug page: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Calendar&format=guided
Good idea. How about this? Note it will only work if the URL already specifies the product; otherwise the URL param will get lost. Gerv
Here's a v2 which also fixes bug 308943 and tweaks a couple of other things. Gerv
Attachment #196785 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Dave: we don't have the relevant flags in this product. Any chance of a review and some approval? Gerv
Are you planning to check this into Bugzilla CVS, or is this something for us to apply locally only? If the latter, is it against 2.19.2, 2.20rc2, or cvs tip?
Dave: It's against CVS tip, but will probably apply to 2.20 without hassle. It's an invisible change and won't break other users, and format-guided is fairly mozilla.org specific anyway, so I think we should just check it in. Gerv
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
gekacheka: that's great, but it certainly doesn't belong attached to this bug! Dave: any chance of that review? Gerv
Comment on attachment 196786 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v.2 hmm, we have flags here now. :) Looks good to me. Let's get it in. bmo's getting upgraded soon, so tip is fine if it still applies.
Attachment #196786 - Flags: review+
Gerv, this is unfamiliar territory for me so I've reread everything and if your patch leaves the field blank for products like thunderbird then I this should indeed address bug 308943. But the form still comes up short for non-browser product in the wording under "Build Identifier". With patch the wording will be ... "This identifies exactly the version of the product you were using. If reporting a bug in the Mozilla Suite, Seamonkey or Firefox, this is the line beginning "Mozilla/5.0" in Help | About. If you are using the problematic browser to file the bug, this field will already be filled in correctly. If the product won't start, just enter the complete URL you downloaded it from." I suggest this can be substantially improved, among other things the logic progression of the sentences doesn't flow well. Assume for example a thunderbird report and therefore the field is blank - then half of the above is not especially relevant. If one further assumes a novice reporter then some of it will also be confusing, the last thing they need to read about is what was automatically filled in. I would suggest wording along these lines ... "This should identify exactly the version of the product you were using. If the above field is blank, copy the version from the product's Help | About menu (for browsers this often begins with "Mozilla/5.0 ..."). If the product won't start, paste the complete URL you downloaded it from. If the field is not blank, please check that the information is accurate for the product you are reporting." Gerv, I'm sure this could be improved further, and perhaps the last sentence can be struck. Does this line of thought make sense to you as well? Again, keeping this as simple and logical as possible for the novice reporter. Wording might be further refined by using IF .. product, but that would make it less generic. A related issue, which is perhaps beyond the scope of the bug, can we expect most novice reporters to report a correct URL? I would think not, but perhaps in practice you are seeing a high percentage of good URLs being reported?
Fixed, with updated wording (thanks Wayne). Checking in template/en/default/bug/create/create-guided.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/create/create-guided.html.tmpl,v <-- create-guided.html.tmpl new revision: 1.35; previous revision: 1.34 done Gerv
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Component: Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues → General
Product: mozilla.org → bugzilla.mozilla.org
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.