If you think a bug might affect users in the 57 release, please set the correct tracking and status flags for Release Management.

Remove duplicates.xul (was: what is CanonicaliseParams()??)

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 3.4

Status

()

Bugzilla
Reporting/Charting
--
minor
RESOLVED FIXED
11 years ago
8 years ago

People

(Reporter: Frédéric Buclin, Assigned: Frédéric Buclin)

Tracking

2.20.4
Bugzilla 3.4
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
approval +

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

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

Description

11 years ago
As far as I can see, CanonicaliseParams() never existed, despite it has been introduced in bug 156548. I checked in 2.20.4 and in 3.1, and I cannot find any function with such a name:

Undefined subroutine &main::CanonicaliseParams called at /var/www/html/bugzilla/duplicates.cgi line 45.

To throw this error, all you have to do is to go to duplicates.cgi?ctype=xul. This makes me think this feature never worked.
(Assignee)

Comment 1

11 years ago
Did you mean $cgi->canonicalise_query()? See Bugzilla::CGI::canonicalise_query().
(Assignee)

Comment 2

11 years ago
I see, bug 147833 removed CanonicaliseParams() from CGI.pl and replaced it with Bugzilla::CGI::canonicalise_query() on Oct 25, 2002. And duplicates.cgi started using CanonicaliseParams() on Nov 4, 2002; one week later! So bbaetz couldn't fix it as it wasn't checked in yet. And probably the reviewer of duplicates.cgi didn't upgrade yet and so still had CanonicaliseParams() in his installation.

Said otherwise: this code *never* worked (even when it was implemented in 2.17.x) and nobody ever noticed it!! Probably a very useful feature. :-/

Does it mean we should kill it completely?
Depends on: 147833
Bugzilla/CGI.pm was checked in (including canonicalise_query(), which used to be CanonicaliseParams() in the now-defunct CGI.pl) on 2002-10-25, half way through the review process for bug 156548. I strongly suspect Myk did a CVS update and then checkin without realising that a function he called had disappeared from under his feet. And it took so long for it to arrive on b.m.o. that everyone had forgotten it existed. 

Ah, well.

Gerv

Comment 4

11 years ago
I for one don't object to removing features that are never used.

If somebody wants to make an XUL interface for Bugzilla, that should be a separate project. (And was--Bugxula, a while ago, but it died.)
Actually this feature has always worked at its canonical location, it just hasn't worked from the redirect built into duplicates.cgi.  Here's where to go to access the feature on b.m.o:

jar:http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/duplicates.jar!/duplicates.xul

Note: it can take some time for the tree to populate.

Nevertheless, I doubt the feature is used very much on b.m.o or at all on other installations, since you have to sign it (or compromise the security of your web browser) to get it working, so I'm fine with removing it.
As the XUL version still works I don't think we should remove it. We should instead just remove or fix the broken redirection code.
Are we sure the XUL version still works? XUL has changed a fair bit since 2002.

Gerv
I wrote:

> Here's where to go to access the feature on b.m.o:
> 
> jar:http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/duplicates.jar!/duplicates.xul

Err, actually it's:

jar:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/duplicates.jar!/duplicates.xul


Teemu wrote:

> As the XUL version still works I don't think we should remove it. We should
> instead just remove or fix the broken redirection code.

I think it actually is worth removing it if it isn't being used, even though it still works, given that it's unowned and that we haven't made any other moves towards building XUL-based interfaces into Bugzilla.

And I think Max is right that a XUL-based interface should be a separate project, with the core Bugzilla project providing just the standard HTML interface plus an API that other projects can use to provide alternate ones.


Gerv wrote:

> Are we sure the XUL version still works? XUL has changed a fair bit since
> 2002.

I don't think it's changed a whole lot, actually.  In any case, the parts that the Duplicates Report needs haven't changed, so it still works.
I just tried it; I had to trust "America On Line" twice, and then every time I load a bug, but it worked.

Gerv
> I had to trust "America On Line" twice, and then every time I load a bug

That's because AOL bought the certificate that we used to sign the code.  Alternately, you could enable codebase principals, use the unsigned version, and trust bugzilla.mozilla.org instead.
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Severity: normal → minor
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 3.0 → Bugzilla 4.0
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Assignee: gerv → LpSolit
Summary: What is CanonicaliseParams()?? → Remove duplicates.xul (was: what is CanonicaliseParams()??)
(Assignee)

Comment 11

10 years ago
Created attachment 321158 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1
Attachment #321158 - Flags: review?(myk)
(Assignee)

Comment 12

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 321158 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1

myk said he doesn't have time to review this patch.
Attachment #321158 - Flags: review?(myk) → review?(mkanat)

Comment 13

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 321158 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1

I think we should also modify checksetup to remove duplicates*.rdf.

Otherwise I'm fine with removing all this.
Attachment #321158 - Flags: review?(mkanat) → review-
(Assignee)

Comment 14

10 years ago
Created attachment 321530 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2

Remove data/duplicates*.rdf
Attachment #321158 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #321530 - Flags: review?(mkanat)

Comment 15

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 321530 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v2

Looks good. Of course, old .htaccess files will continue to have the allow statement in them for duplicates.rdf.
Attachment #321530 - Flags: review?(mkanat) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 16

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #15)
> (From update of attachment 321530 [details] [diff] [review])
> Looks good. Of course, old .htaccess files will continue to have the allow
> statement in them for duplicates.rdf.

Yes, but that's not a big deal as they no longer exist anyway. And this is probably safer than trying to fix .htaccess ourselves, especially if an admin edited it manually.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: approval+
(Assignee)

Comment 17

10 years ago
Checking in collectstats.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/collectstats.pl,v  <--  collectstats.pl
new revision: 1.65; previous revision: 1.64
done
Checking in duplicates.cgi;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/duplicates.cgi,v  <--  duplicates.cgi
new revision: 1.62; previous revision: 1.61
done
Removing duplicates.xul;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/duplicates.xul,v  <--  duplicates.xul
new revision: delete; previous revision: 1.2
done
Checking in Bugzilla/Install/Filesystem.pm;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/Install/Filesystem.pm,v  <--  Filesystem.pm
new revision: 1.30; previous revision: 1.29
done
Checking in docs/en/xml/security.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/en/xml/security.xml,v  <--  security.xml
new revision: 1.19; previous revision: 1.18
done
Removing js/duplicates.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/js/duplicates.js,v  <--  duplicates.js
new revision: delete; previous revision: 1.2
done
Checking in template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl,v  <--  filterexceptions.pl
new revision: 1.112; previous revision: 1.111
done
Removing template/en/default/reports/duplicates.rdf.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/reports/duplicates.rdf.tmpl,v  <--  duplicates.rdf.tmpl
new revision: delete; previous revision: 1.4
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Updated

9 years ago
Keywords: relnote

Updated

9 years ago
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 4.0 → Bugzilla 3.4

Updated

8 years ago
Blocks: 501040
(Assignee)

Updated

8 years ago
No longer blocks: 501040
Part of the deleted code in this bug began shipping again in the 3.1.x and 3.2.x series, but was removed (yet again) in 3.3.x and later.  See Bug 501040 for more details.
(Assignee)

Comment 19

8 years ago
(In reply to comment #18)
> Part of the deleted code in this bug began shipping again in the 3.1.x and
> 3.2.x series, but was removed (yet again) in 3.3.x and later.  See Bug 501040
> for more details.

This statement is completely wrong. You misunderstand what the version field means, as I explained in bug 501040.
(In reply to comment #19)
> This statement is completely wrong. You misunderstand what the version field
> means, as I explained in bug 501040.

Yep, my bad.

Comment 21

8 years ago
Added to the release notes for Bugzilla 3.4 in bug 494037.
Keywords: relnote
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.