User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_5; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.6+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1 Build Identifier: HEAD If you use an extension, and want to add content via a HOOK in template/en/default/list/list.html.tmpl [% PROCESS bugcount %] [% BLOCK bugcount %] [% Hook.process('ALEX_ASKING') %] [% END %] Reproducible: Always Actual Results: this tries to find the following template files in 3 locations ./extensions/example/template/en//-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl ./extensions/example/template/en/default/hook/bugcount/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl ./template/en/default/hook/bugcount/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl Expected Results: Instead of ./extensions/example/template/en//testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl OR ./extensions/example/template/en/list/testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl The following two are ok. ./extensions/example/template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl ./template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl If this is expected behavior for backwards compatibility then please bug as invalid. This is a variant of bug 318205
> Expected Results: > Instead of > ./extensions/example/template/en//testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl > OR > ./extensions/example/template/en/list/testalex1-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl should have been Expected Results: Instead of ./extensions/example/template/en//bugcount-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl Should be ./extensions/example/template/en/list/bugcount-ALEX_ASKING..tmpl Also note that these two ./extensions/example/template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl ./template/en/default/hook/testalex1/ALEX_ASKING/*.tmpl Don't respect a disabled flag
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Duplicate of bug: 318205
note that the above issues still exists on the head. Reopen 318205 if you think they are a duplicate.
mkanat says you run 3.1.2. If that's true, could you upgrade to 3.2 and tell us if you can still reproduce the problem? If yes, then reopen the bug.
(In reply to comment #4) > mkanat says you run 3.1.2. If that's true, could you upgrade to 3.2 and tell us > if you can still reproduce the problem? If yes, then reopen the bug. I tested this on bugzilla head. It may not be a real problem, but the actual paths that are checked are bad.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
Let's confirm it for now.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Version: unspecified → 3.3.1
This bug, as reported, is actually invalid, though because of a reason you might not expect--we solved the problem you're experiencing by allowing a second argument to Hook.process, which you're not specifying in your hook call. However, I think there's a way to work around that ourselves and not require people to have a second argument to process() when they call it from inside a block.
Summary: Extensions: the path to the hook is incorrect when called from inside a block → Eliminate the need to have a second argument to Hook.process when inside a BLOCK
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 3.6
Severity: normal → enhancement
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 3.6 → ---
mkanat says this bug is fixable but doesn't explain how. Until he comes back and tells us, marking WONTFIX :-) Gerv
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago → 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.