Enable spellchecking in the summary field

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 3.2

Status

()

Bugzilla
Creating/Changing Bugs
RESOLVED FIXED
10 years ago
10 years ago

People

(Reporter: sdwilsh, Assigned: reed)

Tracking

Bugzilla 3.2
Bug Flags:
approval +

Details

(Whiteboard: [wanted-bmo])

Attachments

(2 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

10 years ago
It'd be really nice to have spellchecking enabled by default in the summary field for filing new bugs.
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Assignee: justdave → create-and-change
Component: Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: mozilla.org → Bugzilla
QA Contact: reed → default-qa
Version: other → 3.0
Bugzilla doesn't do spellchecking, that's a browser feature.
Assignee: create-and-change → nobody
Component: Creating/Changing Bugs → Form Manager
Product: Bugzilla → Firefox
QA Contact: default-qa → form.manager
Version: 3.0 → 2.0 Branch
This is a request for Bugzilla to enable spell checking in it's summary field. See http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Controlling_spell_checking_in_HTML_forms .
Assignee: nobody → justdave
Component: Form Manager → Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues
Product: Firefox → mozilla.org
QA Contact: form.manager → reed
Version: 2.0 Branch → other
(This just requires adding spellcheck="true" to the <input>).
and that's specified where in the HTML standard? ;)

But I'd call this a Bugzilla thing rather than b.m.o specific then.
Assignee: justdave → create-and-change
Component: Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: mozilla.org → Bugzilla
QA Contact: reed → default-qa
Version: other → 3.0
I suspect it was a request for b.m.o specifically, because getting this into a  Bugzilla release and then getting that release running on b.m.o takes too long, whereas adding an attribute on the form input for b.m.o's template is simple.

It's not in the HTML specification, but I don't see why that matters.
There's no reason Bugzilla itself shouldn't also do it, of course - but getting this on b.m.o shouldn't necessarily need to wait on the long process of patching Bugzilla and then upgrading b.m.o.
(Assignee)

Comment 7

10 years ago
Created attachment 274311 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v1

Set spellcheck="true", as per http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Controlling_spell_checking_in_HTML_forms so that the summary field is spell checked.
Assignee: create-and-change → reed
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #274311 - Flags: review?(bugzilla-mozilla)
(Assignee)

Comment 8

10 years ago
Created attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

Oops, I forgot to add spellcheck="true" to the bug create templates.
Attachment #274311 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #274327 - Flags: review?(bugzilla-mozilla)
Attachment #274311 - Flags: review?(bugzilla-mozilla)

Comment 9

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #5)
> It's not in the HTML specification, but I don't see why that matters.

That matters because we want Bugzilla templates to be valid HTML4 Transitional pages.
(Reporter)

Comment 10

10 years ago
I guess it's a bmo bug then...
Assignee: reed → justdave
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Component: Creating/Changing Bugs → Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues
Product: Bugzilla → mozilla.org
QA Contact: default-qa → reed
Version: 3.0 → other
I think this would be a win for Bugzilla users, but we should absolutely do it downstream if upstream isn't willing to take the patch.
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > It's not in the HTML specification, but I don't see why that matters.
> 
> That matters because we want Bugzilla templates to be valid HTML4 Transitional
> pages.

Why? I've heard Bugzilla developers use this argument to deny patches in the past, but I really can't see why having your patches validate to an obsolete and incomplete standard is beneficial to you or your users.

Comment 13

10 years ago
HTML 4 is not obsolete, and this forces us to use something which all browsers (should) understand. AFAIK, spellcheck="true" won't work on IE6/7. What would you say if a IE lover started submitting patches to add IE specific attributes which are neither in the specs not understandable by Firefox?

Comment 14

10 years ago
Moreover, I'm not sure that NsISomeFunction is in the dictionary, nor that everybody uses the same dictionaries as we may all have different locales (en, fr, de, it, ...).
(In reply to comment #13)
> HTML 4 is not obsolete, and this forces us to use something which all browsers
> (should) understand. AFAIK, spellcheck="true" won't work on IE6/7.

That's right, it won't, because IE doesn't have built-in spell check. I don't see why that is a problem - adding it won't do any *harm* to IE (or any other browser, as far as I know).

> What would you say if a IE lover started submitting patches to add IE specific
> attributes which are neither in the specs not understandable by Firefox?

I would say that you should consider the request pragmatically and accept the patch if the cost/benefit ratio is low enough.

I think the cost/benefit ratio in this case specifically is close to 0.
I was going to just say go for it if it was in the current draft for HTML5, but it's not (I just checked).  On the other hand, this has a high usability win on the browsers that do support it, and those that don't *should* ignore it.  We can do this on b.m.o regardless, but I'm sitting on the fence for doing it upstream in Bugzilla (but heavily leaning towards "go ahead and do it").
(Assignee)

Comment 17

10 years ago
Considering I wrote the patch for upstream and the fact that it is awaiting review from a Bugzilla developer, I'm moving this back to the Bugzilla product.
Assignee: justdave → reed
Component: Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: mozilla.org → Bugzilla
QA Contact: reed → default-qa
Version: other → 3.0
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Whiteboard: [wanted-bmo]

Comment 18

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #17)
> I'm moving this back to the Bugzilla product.

You could try Tech Evangelism. :)
(Assignee)

Comment 19

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #9)
> That matters because we want Bugzilla templates to be valid HTML4 Transitional
> pages.

If Bugzilla developers really cared about valid HTML4 Transitional, they would have fixed bug 364096 a while ago. ;)
(Assignee)

Comment 20

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

Trying LpSolit as a reviewer since bkor isn't around.
Attachment #274327 - Flags: review?(bugzilla-mozilla) → review?(LpSolit)

Comment 21

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

justdave is the Bugzilla module owner. I will let him take his responsibilities.
Attachment #274327 - Flags: review?(LpSolit) → review?(justdave)
Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

r=justdave

Patch still applies to the trunk cleanly believe it or not.
Attachment #274327 - Flags: review?(justdave) → review+
reed: this was yours, do you have commit access for webtools?
Flags: approval+

Comment 24

10 years ago
For 3.2 only.
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 3.2
(Assignee)

Comment 25

10 years ago
Checking in template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl,v  <--  edit.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.108; previous revision: 1.107
done
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: 1.41; previous revision: 1.40
done
Checking in template/en/default/bug/create/create.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/create/create.html.tmpl,v  <--  create.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.81; previous revision: 1.80
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Summary: Enabled spellchecking in the summary field → Enable spellchecking in the summary field
(Assignee)

Comment 26

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #23)
> reed: this was yours, do you have commit access for webtools?

Yes, I have commit access for all of /cvsroot. :)

Comment 27

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

>Index: template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl

>+              [% " spellcheck=\"$spellcheck\"" IF spellcheck %]>

filterexceptions.pl doesn't have this entry, making Tinderboxes to burn.

Comment 28

10 years ago
Reopening. All boxes are burning.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
(Assignee)

Comment 29

10 years ago
Created attachment 291117 [details] [diff] [review]
add spellcheck to filterexceptions.pl - v1

How's this?
Attachment #291117 - Flags: review?(LpSolit)

Comment 30

10 years ago
Comment on attachment 291117 [details] [diff] [review]
add spellcheck to filterexceptions.pl - v1

r/a=LpSolit
Attachment #291117 - Flags: review?(LpSolit) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 31

10 years ago
Thanks for the quick review.

Checking in template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl,v  <--  filterexceptions.pl
new revision: 1.110; previous revision: 1.109
done
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.