Closed
Bug 63601
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
Recommend filename when downloading attachment
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, enhancement, P2)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: timeless, Assigned: justdave)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 10 obsolete files)
6.57 KB,
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
We should recommend a filename. showattachment.cgi is a bad recommendation.
Comment 2•24 years ago
|
||
attachments should show their file name (instead of just date/time or "id=xxx").
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 6•24 years ago
|
||
Example for the above patch... When I created the file I named it 63601.dif. If you were to try and download it (and if it weren't text/plain) it would suggest the name of 63601-63601.dif (BUG#-FILENAME).
Comment 8•24 years ago
|
||
Please also look at bug 20383 which I marked duplicate, because it has a small patch attached, too.
Summary: Recommend filename → Recommend filename when downloading attachment
Updated•23 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
Comment 9•23 years ago
|
||
An alternative technique that works on at least some web servers is to make the link of the form: "/showattachment.cgi/originalfilename.txt?attach_id=12345" The following patch does this, and also adds a GetAttachLink to centralise the process in a similar way to GetBugLink
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 82527 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
Bug 82527 also came with a patch (attachment 35950 [details] [diff] [review]).
Comment 13•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 85706 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•23 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P2
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
->New product Bugzilla
Assignee: tara → myk
Component: Bugzilla → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: Webtools → Bugzilla
Version: other → 2.12
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 102140 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
Bug 102140 has a patch for this.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
And this bug has several. They all seem to take a different approach to it. Daniel, can you reupload your patch to this bug?
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 51499 [details] [diff] [review] Use orginal filename (without complete path). Tested with Netscape 4.71, IE 5.0 and IE 5.5. Looks sensible to me. I didn't know we stored the original filename in the DB. r=gerv. Gerv
Attachment #51499 -
Flags: review+
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
This does not seem to work with wget. It still saves the filename improperly. Example if I do: wget http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=33499 it properly downloads the file and places it in the current directory but the filename itself is: showattachment.cgi?attach_id=33499
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 51499 [details] [diff] [review] Use orginal filename (without complete path). Tested with Netscape 4.71, IE 5.0 and IE 5.5. >! $filename =~ s/^.*[\/\\]//; This truncates a path down to a name, right? What about MacOS, which uses a ":"? >! print qq{Content-type: $mimetype; name="$filename"\nContent-disposition: file; filename=$filename\n\n$thedata}; Does the filename need to be in quotes in Content-disposition? Gerv
Attachment #51499 -
Flags: review+
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
Daniel: could you respond to the review comments? Thanks :-) Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
We are currently trying to wrap up Bugzilla 2.16. We are now close enough to release time that anything that wasn't already ranked at P1 isn't going to make the cut. Thus this is being retargetted at 2.18. If you strongly disagree with this retargetting, please comment, however, be aware that we only have about 2 weeks left to review and test anything at this point, and we intend to devote this time to the remaining bugs that were designated as release blockers.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.16 → Bugzilla 2.18
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
I'm looking at attachment 51499 [details] [diff] [review], "Use orginal filename (without complete path). Tested with Netscape 4.71, IE 5.0 and IE 5.5." for this comment. For reference, RFC 2183 covers the Content-Disposition MIME header. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2183.txt Note that "file" is not a standard Content-Disposition value (the only ones defined in the RFC are "inline" and "attachment"). However, this non-standard value may force various versions of MSIE to actually respect the desire of the programmer and force a save-file dialog box for file being sent. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asupport.microsoft.com+content-disposition Also the filename parameter should NOT be enclosed in quotes. One of the Microsoft knowledgebase articles mentions this. While it is not explicitly stated in the RFC, the BNF notation has quoted values for the dates, but not for the filename parameter. (The patch is correct. I was looking at the "name" parameter for the Content-Type header.) Finally, the patch has commented-out code and does not use the $filesize parameter that it calculates itself. It needs to add a "size=$filesize" parameter to the Content-Disposition line.
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
I think the original filename would be a bad idea. The filenames of things I upload are typically useless because I expected them to never be used. They could also be the same between different attachments on the same or different bugs. I think much more useful would be attachment number or probably better bug number-attachment number, then perhaps followed by the original filename.
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
I agree. Please don't use original filename. Make a field and let people set it. And provide a default.
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
Other than as a candidate for a downloaded filename, is there any need to have the original filename in the DB? If the current filename field was editable on the Edit Attachment screen, "bad" filenames could be fixed. Then add "Upload as filename: (leave blank for same as local filename) [ ]" onto the Create Attachment form, allowing someone to call it Bug123-Patch2.txt or similar.
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
I think the original filename (minus the path) should be kept because some software may request a specific filename (config file for instance). If there is a conflict on the filename, then the save dialog box should display the overwrite confirmation. It's then up to the downloader to decide what he wants to do (add a number, add the bug number, replace the current file,...)
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
Whether you want to use the orignal file name on attachments or not can be a preference. If you turn the pref on, filenames would appear as: Bug#-Attachment#-origfilename.origextension Otherwise: Bug#-Attachment#.origextension Which would leave only one issue on whether someone might want to quickly toggle this setting. Perhaps, There could be a box at the bottom of the attachment list to temporarily toggle this setting.
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
I think it should default to the uploaded filename unless overridden by the uploader. I have run into this problem today. I uploaded a program called program.gz to bugzilla but the person downloading it thought it had failed because the file size was too small and the filename was showattachment.cgi. If the name was program.gz, he would have understood what he had to do.
Comment 31•22 years ago
|
||
The fact that most original filenames may not be perfect is not interesting - what is relevant is the fact that when the name _is_ important, it usually is correct. One typical use of our installation of Bugzilla is to create requests for drawing graphics (for web sites). When those graphics are ready, they're attached. Now, since the filenames for the image files are usually relevant because they are linked to from html files, it's quite a pain trying to download the files and give them correct names according to some info in the attachment comments. It would be much easier to use the original file name directly. I can't see why there should be something like bug number prefixes in the filename: if the file isn't unique, then it isn't; browsers usually ask the save location and file name anyway. Saving attachments is fairly rare; I don't think name conflicts are worth extra hassle.
Component: Creating/Changing Bugs → attachment and request management
Comment 32•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 161404 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 33•22 years ago
|
||
This patch takes the previous one and updates it for attachment.cgi (previous one was against showattachment.cgi), and also adds the capability to edit the filename to the attachment editing page. This is live at http://landfill.bugzilla.org/bz63101/show_bug.cgi?id=365 (yeah, I know I screwed up the bug number when I created the landfill install, but oh well)
Attachment #21200 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #21201 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #21203 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #21388 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #32415 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #51499 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 34•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 94297 [details] [diff] [review] same as previous, updated for attachment.cgi, add filename editing Waht is content-disposition: file? Where is it defined? You need to check taht this doesn't break IE - see bug 27248 comment 17 + friends.
Assignee | ||
Comment 35•22 years ago
|
||
bbaetz: see comment #24 on this bug. However, see also http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q182315& MSIE less than 5.0 is broken with regards to this. Apparently using "file" as a disposition works in IE 4.x, but the real ones don't. Almost everything on the planet that uses IE requires IE 5 these days so it's probably safe to just leave it broken in IE4 and do it per the RFC (which means changing the disposition to "attachment")
Assignee | ||
Comment 36•22 years ago
|
||
Contrary to comment 24 from ddk, I don't see anything in the RFC about a "size" parameter to the Content-Disposition: header. Should that be moved out to Content-Length: ? (or just Length: I forget which is it...)
Assignee | ||
Comment 37•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 94297 [details] [diff] [review] same as previous, updated for attachment.cgi, add filename editing needs-work, per previous comments. I'll wait for a little more discussion on the bug before I update the patch again.
Attachment #94297 -
Flags: review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 38•22 years ago
|
||
OK, did my research in the RFC, and there is no "size" parameter to the Content-Disposition header defined. However, there is a Content-Length header, which the RFC says is REQUIRED any time we actually know how much data we're going to send (which we do in this case). Those changes are made in this patch as well as changing the disposition to "attachment" instead of "file". This is correct per the RFC, but doesn't work in IE4. As noted in previous comments, Microsoft admits this is a bug in IE4 and claims to have fixed it in IE5. The end result is that people using IE4 will have the same behaviour they always got from Bugzilla before we added this header. People using a browser that follows the standards will be politely asked to confirm the real filename.
Attachment #94297 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 39•22 years ago
|
||
oops. had a blank line in the wrong place, and forgot contributors
Attachment #94591 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 40•22 years ago
|
||
I tried this out on Mozilla OS X CFM 2002071608 and MSIE 5.1.1 OSX, it Does The Right Thing on both. :)
Comment 41•22 years ago
|
||
Wasn't the problem with MSIE4 (bug 27248) that trying to _view_ a page which had this content-disposition header in it would force a save-as dialog to appear? I don't care if a particular browser won't use our suggested filename, but if it means that you can't view the attachment....
Assignee | ||
Comment 42•22 years ago
|
||
OK, so the answer is, we need to browser-sniff and if it's MSIE < 5 we don't include the headers....
Assignee | ||
Comment 43•22 years ago
|
||
This patch adds browser detection, and doesn't display the Content-Disposition header if the user's browser identifies as an MSIE older than 5.0
Attachment #94592 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 44•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 94808 [details] [diff] [review] adds browser-sniffing r=bbaetz x2, as long as someone has tested on windows ie
Attachment #94808 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 45•22 years ago
|
||
I can't, I don't have access to Windows. Jouni?
Comment 46•22 years ago
|
||
I have IE 4.0. I can test it if it's live somewhere.
Assignee | ||
Comment 47•22 years ago
|
||
it's live at http://landfill.bugzilla.org/bz63601/show_bug.cgi?id=365 (well, that whole installation, but that bug has a few attachments on it to test with)
Comment 48•22 years ago
|
||
Looks good for IE5 on Windows 95.
Comment 49•22 years ago
|
||
In Moz 1.1b on Win2K, right clicking an attachment and doing "Save Link Target As..." suggests attachment.cgi.html. Clicking attachments Moz can't display Does The Right Thing; obviously, clicking ones it can display displays them. IE 6, on the other hand, works correctly in all cases. Gerv
Comment 50•22 years ago
|
||
gerv: bz knows about that bug - if you do save-as from teh linked page then it works most of the time. bz is of the opinion that fixing that to work correctly all the time in moz in Hard, because of the way we load stuff (moz sends a HEAD request first, but apache doesn't send the headers for HEAD modes. Taht could be a bugzilla thing we could fix at some point, but even if we did, moz still won't always work) However, we still need an ie < 5 test before this goes in....
Comment 51•22 years ago
|
||
On IE 4.0 on NT 4.0. The patches display directly in the browser. You are not prompted to save the file. I think this is OK. However, the gz file saves as the file name "attachment" without a file type. In mozilla it suggests "AutoResponseV0.3.tar.gz". The IE 4.0 behaviour doesn't seem right.
Comment 52•22 years ago
|
||
So are we going with this, or not? I say we check it in, and see if anyone complains. Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 53•22 years ago
|
||
Based on comment 51, this is okay as stands. The "suggest filename" thing is completely broken in IE4, thus the reason we disabled it if the browser is IE4. The fact that you can view the contents of it at all in IE4 means this patch didn't break usability on IE4. (otherwise it would prompt for a Save As.. dialog whether the attachment was viewable or not, so you'd never be able to view it in your browser window, even if it was text, which was the IE4 bug). a= justdave, will check it in shortly, assuming it hasn't bitrotted.
Assignee | ||
Comment 54•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 94808 [details] [diff] [review] adds browser-sniffing oof. it's bitrotted I don't have time to mess with it right now, someone remind me tomorrow and I'll refresh it.
Attachment #94808 -
Flags: review+ → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 55•22 years ago
|
||
OK, the primary conflict was the "isprivate" field getting added to the attachments table. New patch coming up shortyly. Joel, you should probably have a look at it just to double-check that I didn't break the private attachments thing.
Assignee: myk → justdave
Assignee | ||
Comment 56•22 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #94808 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 57•22 years ago
|
||
This is still live at http://landfill.bugzilla.org/bz63601/show_bug.cgi?id=365 fwiw.
Comment 58•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 100095 [details] [diff] [review] Merge with tip I'm testing this with Mozilla and the Content-Disposition field is meaning that it pops a "download" dialog when you click the link for all file types, including text/plain and text/html . It also pops this dialog when you go to "edit", because you are trying to load the attachment into the iframe. This works in 1.0 and (according to justdave) 1.1. So Mozilla is broken at the moment. r=gerv. Check it in, and then we can file a bug with Landfill as the test case. They will be more likely to fix it if they know it'll affect Bugzilla ;-) Gerv
Attachment #100095 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 59•22 years ago
|
||
Checking in attachment.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/attachment.cgi,v <-- attachment.cgi new revision: 1.23; previous revision: 1.22 done Checking in checksetup.pl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/checksetup.pl,v <-- checksetup.pl new revision: 1.190; previous revision: 1.189 done Checking in template/en/default/attachment/edit.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/attachment/edit.html.tmpl,v <-- edit.html.tmpl new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10 done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 60•22 years ago
|
||
I looked over the patch. I don't think there is a substantial risk of breaking private attachments. We're just both adding fields to the same list of fields to select.
Assignee | ||
Comment 61•22 years ago
|
||
This issue is not dead. See bug 171296.
Comment 62•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 175122 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 63•22 years ago
|
||
Given all the problems with content-disposition headers, etc. is there likely still to be any merit in tweaking the attachment links in the manner suggested in comment 9, and implemented in obsolete attachment 32415 [details] [diff] [review]? I'm currently tweaking our local bugzilla 2.16 installation, and wondering whether to redo a rough equivalent to that patch or to go with the bugzilla standard.
Comment 64•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 207823 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•12 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•