Closed
Bug 518510
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Can't enter username formula for incoming server in add new form
Categories
(Webtools :: ISPDB Server, defect, P1)
Webtools
ISPDB Server
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: bugzilla, Assigned: bwinton)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
14.96 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In the "Add new" form there is only one username formula field. This seems to be the username formula associated with the outgoing server (Note: This is my guess after looking at the configuration preview). There is no way to enter a username formula associated with the incoming server.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
Check out the ConfigForm in config/models.py. For some reason we're excluding the incoming username formula. I suspect it's because we should be using the same username formula for both incoming and outgoing, but if that's the case, we need to copy it over when the user submits the form.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: blocking-thunderbird3?
Priority: -- → P1
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
(D'oh, forgot to change the "resolved" status before commenting.)
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: WORKSFORME → ---
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
As per discussion, we've decide that we won't actually block on this.
Flags: blocking-thunderbird3? → blocking-thunderbird3-
I see that this Bug is not assigned to anyone. I would like to work on it...
Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → lindauson.hazell
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Lindauson, go ahead, we're accepting patches :)
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
Note, the the XML element is empty, too: <http://ispdb.mozillamessaging.com/export_xml/64> The client actually treats them separate in the code, so this breaks TB. Expected result: Either - a username formula textfield for the incoming server, just like we have for the outgoing server - One text field for both, and it's populated to both elements in the XML. (This is based on the fact that most ISPs use the same username for both incoming and SMTP, to not confuse users, but disadvantage is that we wouldn't be able to support those fringe ISPs who differ there. I have seen ISPs who actually accept a certain form only one one server, but there typically has been an straightforward form that works on both.)
Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Assignee: lindauson.hazell → bwinton
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
Let's try this patch.
Attachment #419348 -
Flags: review?(david.ascher)
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
Drive by: + incoming_authentication = incoming_authentication, + outgoing_authentication = outgoing_authentication, that is suspicious. I haven't looked at the context to know if we really want to make a shadow of a global, but i doubt it. =) + c2 = Domain.objects.filter(name=curr_domain) + if len(c2) == 1: + c2 = c2[0].config + else: + c2 = c that looks like it could use a comment I need a bit more time to actually do a real review though.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #11) > Drive by: > + incoming_authentication = incoming_authentication, > + outgoing_authentication = outgoing_authentication, > that is suspicious. I haven't looked at the context to know if we really want > to make a shadow of a global, but i doubt it. =) The context here is that we're passing the local variable into a constructor as a keyword parameter. > + c2 = Domain.objects.filter(name=curr_domain) > + if len(c2) == 1: > + c2 = c2[0].config > + else: > + c2 = c > that looks like it could use a comment Uh, yeah. As soon as I figure out what I was hoping to do there, I'll definitely comment it. :) > I need a bit more time to actually do a real review though. Okay. Thanks for the drive-by. Later, Blake.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 419348 [details] [diff] [review] A patch to add the incoming username, and fix the tests. Changing the request to Sancus, since he's doing some work in this area, and probably knows the code better than David or I at this point. ;)
Attachment #419348 -
Flags: review?(david.ascher) → review?(sancus)
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
This has been fixed in https://github.com/mozilla/ispdb/pull/5.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago → 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 419348 [details] [diff] [review] A patch to add the incoming username, and fix the tests. Removing now obsolete review request.
Attachment #419348 -
Flags: review?(sancus)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Component: ispdb → ISPDB Server
Product: Mozilla Messaging → Webtools
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•