345030 - Feature Request: Robot interface for bugzilla

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 224577

(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, enhancement)

Description

[Enrico Weigelt]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060524
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060524

Feature Request for an generic robot interface, so other applications (ie. Version controls, build-/test-systems, mail-robots, etc) can be easily docked-in.


Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[timeless]

huh? we already have hooks, we already have perl modules, we already have alternate output formats e.g. rss/xml/rdf/js. and we're working on some sort of rpc, although you can already just make url requests...

Comment 2

[Enrico Weigelt]

Is there any documentation for this ?

I don't want to hack into the (web-)frontend with my robots, instead I need an clean interface, which reliably does never change once its specified (later changes could be done by adding another, similar but changed, interface) so I don't have ugly surprises.

Maybe these interfaces could be represented each by some .cgi in an robot/ subdir.


At the moment I need an interface for filing an new bug, so I can automatically add new review requests for my source crawler project (http://sourcefarm.metux.de/).

Comment 3

[Colin Ogilvie [:cso]]

(In reply to comment #2)
> At the moment I need an interface for filing an new bug, so I can automatically
> add new review requests for my source crawler project
> (http://sourcefarm.metux.de/).

There's a Python script in contrib/ that does that:

http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/contrib/bugzilla-submit/

Comment 4

[Enrico Weigelt]

(In reply to comment #3)
>
> http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/webtools/bugzilla/contrib/bugzilla-submit/
> 

hmm, this script uses the current web frontend. Of course it works for now, but this isn't what I actually consider an stable robot interface. 

a) no one guarantees, that the URLs and parameters do not change
b) there's no guaranteed syntax for the output

Comment 5

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 224577 ***