Closed
Bug 474249
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
Add a WebService interface to add a See Also bug link to a bug
Categories
(Bugzilla :: WebService, enhancement)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 3.4
People
(Reporter: mkanat, Assigned: mkanat)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
7.20 KB,
patch
|
dkl
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This is an important part of future inter-Bugzilla functionality--we need a WebServices interface so that other Bugzillas (and possibly other clients) can set a "see also" URL on bugs in this Bugzilla. It will have an API like this: Bug.add_see_also({ ids => [1,2,3], urls => ['http://somewhere/show_bug.cgi?id=1', 'http://somewhere_else/show_bug.cgi?id=1'] });
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Assignee: webservice → mkanat
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 3.4
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #0) > This is an important part of future inter-Bugzilla functionality--we need a > WebServices interface so that other Bugzillas (and possibly other clients) can > set a "see also" URL on bugs in this Bugzilla. > > It will have an API like this: > > Bug.add_see_also({ ids => [1,2,3], urls => > ['http://somewhere/show_bug.cgi?id=1', > 'http://somewhere_else/show_bug.cgi?id=1'] }); Just a quick what if before I do a full review. What if the user wanted to specify a bug url for one bug id and a different one for another? Would we just require them to make two separate calls and keep it simple or should we allo that in the API for this method? For example: Bug.add_see_also({ ids => { 1 => ['http://somewhere/show_bug.cgi?id=1'], 2 => ['http://somewhere/show_bug.cgi?id=1', 'http://somewhere_else/show_bug.cgi?id=1'], 3 => ['http://somewhere_else/show_bug.cgi?id=1'] }); I don't have a problem with just saying they must make separate calls but I wanted to throw it out. Dave
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > Just a quick what if before I do a full review. What if the user wanted to > specify a bug url for one bug id and a different one for another? Would we just > require them to make two separate calls and keep it simple or should we allo > that in the API for this method? For now, I think we should keep it simple and just require them to make two separate calls. If somebody has a client application where it's a valid use case to add an enormous variation of URLs to a large number of bugs, we can consider how best to support them once we have their real-world use-case. > I don't have a problem with just saying they must make separate calls but I > wanted to throw it out. Yeah, I'm glad you thought of it, I hadn't really considered it. :-) I think we'll stick with the simple method for now, though.
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #357603 -
Flags: review?(dkl) → review+
Comment 4•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 357603 [details] [diff] [review] v1 Looks good and works as expected for different scenarios. r=dkl I assume another bug will be needed to create a Bug.remove_see_also() in the future?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4) > I assume another bug will be needed to create a Bug.remove_see_also() in the > future? Yeah, actually we'll probably need that now, so I should file the bug. :-) Or should I just revise this function to update_see_also, and let it both add and remove URLs at once? I think that'd be better. New patch coming.
Comment 6•16 years ago
|
||
I thought the same after I wrote the review. Maybe add an action key to the params? action => 'add|remove'? Dave
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•16 years ago
|
||
Okay, here it is now as update_see_also. It also has a return value now, which I realized will be needed in order for clients to tell if the function actually did anything. (This will be important in the future for Bugzilla itself, also, to be sure that it's not creating a cross-installation dependency loop.)
Attachment #357603 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #357825 -
Flags: review?(dkl)
Comment 8•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 357825 [details] [diff] [review] v2 Looks good and passes all tests. r=dkl
Attachment #357825 -
Flags: review?(dkl) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•16 years ago
|
||
Checking in Bugzilla/WebService/Bug.pm; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/WebService/Bug.pm,v <-- Bug.pm new revision: 1.24; previous revision: 1.23 done Checking in Bugzilla/WebService/Constants.pm; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/WebService/Constants.pm,v <-- Constants.pm new revision: 1.23; previous revision: 1.22 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Flags: approval+
Keywords: relnote
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•15 years ago
|
Flags: testcase?
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
Added to the release notes for Bugzilla 3.4 in bug 494037.
Keywords: relnote
Updated•13 years ago
|
Flags: testcase? → testcase+
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•