72863 - Remove ugly table shown when posting/changing a bug

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, enhancement, P3)

Comment 1

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

Please explain.

Comment 2

[timeless]

Attachment: spelling

Comment 3

[timeless]

Attachment: improve first col markup

Comment 4

[timeless]

Attachment: zap second cell

Comment 5

[timeless]

Attachment: abandon tables

Comment 6

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Timeless, you are so ****ing cryptic, it really gets on my nerves :-)

Please state:
a) Which patch is the current one
b) Whether it's still relevant
c) Whether or not it still applies cleanly (and refresh it if not)
d) What cross-browser testing you've done on the HTML changes

Then, move it back to 2.16.

Gerv

Comment 7

[timeless]

a) Which patch is the current one
they were all current, merely a matter of perspective.  i want the first one 
for sure, the others are really a, do we want this or that or ...
b) Whether it's still relevant
i think so
c) Whether or not it still applies cleanly (and refresh it if not)
*shrug*
d) What cross-browser testing you've done on the HTML changes
probably mozilla nc4 and maybe ie5. the html changes are safe, there's nothing 
fancy involved.

Comment 8

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

"abandon tables" == nothing fancy involved?

Gerv

Comment 9

[timeless]

sure, it's not like i'm adding css or some other unsupported html construct.

Comment 10

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

> the others are really a, do we want this or that or ...

So post to the newsgroup with your idea, and we'll decide what we want. :-)

Given that nowhere in this bug does it really describe a _problem_ that is
actually being solved, removing patch keyword until things are more clear.

Gerv

Comment 11

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

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.

Comment 12

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 28584 [details] [diff] [review]
spelling

r=kiko

Comment 13

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 28585 [details] [diff] [review]
improve first col markup

r=kiko

Comment 14

[Zach Lipton [:zach]]

Comment on attachment 28584 [details] [diff] [review]
spelling

r2=zach

Comment 15

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 28586 [details] [diff] [review]
zap second cell

Ok, and this removes the Go to Bug# text in addition to doing what the 2nd
patch did?

(Gerv was right. You _are_ confusing :)

Comment 16

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 28586 [details] [diff] [review]
zap second cell

>@@ -111 +112 @@
>-    print "<TD><A HREF=\"show_bug.cgi?id=$id\">Go Back to BUG# $id</A></TABLE>\n";
>+    print "</TABLE>\n";

Why not fix the HTML and </TD></TR></TABLE> instead of leaving it borked?

>@@ -981 +982 @@
>-    print "<TD><A HREF=\"show_bug.cgi?id=$id\">Back To BUG# $id</A></TABLE>\n";
>+    print "</TABLE>\n";
>@@ -1013 +1016 @@
>-        print "<TD><A HREF=\"show_bug.cgi?id=$duplicate\">Go To BUG# $duplicate</A></TABLE>\n";
>+        print "</TABLE>\n";
>@@ -1017 +1020,2 @@
>@@ -1019 +1024 @@
>-        print "<TD><A HREF=\"show_bug.cgi?id=$k\">Go To BUG# $k</A></TABLE>\n";
>+        print "</TABLE>\n";

Same here?

Comment 17

[timeless]

there were two reasons i made the abandon patch, one was the ugly table html
that i didn't want to maintain, the other had to do with User Look and Feel.
between browsers that don't progressively display tables and the tables adding a
blockiness (even or especially w/ progressive display) with no function i
decided to propose a patch that removed them entirely.

Comment 18

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Attachment: improve first col markup (applies cleanly)

Same as attachment 28585 [details] [diff] [review], but it applies cleanly.

Comment 19

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Attachment: Cleanup first column markup and remove second cell

Same as attachment 28586 [details] [diff] [review] except it applies cleanly.  Also obsoleting attachment
65148 [details] [diff] [review] because it contains all of the changes in that one also.

Comment 20

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Attachment: above plus abandons table

Same as attachment 65155 [details] [diff] [review] with the addition of attachment 28587 [details] [diff] [review], but applies
cleanly.  I'm not obsoleting attachment 65115 [details] [diff] [review] because I'm not sure I like this
without the box around each one and I want opinions. :-)

Comment 21

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Comment on attachment 65155 [details] [diff] [review]
Cleanup first column markup and remove second cell

r= justdave
I'll pick this one, since I like the box around it, personally.  I'm still open
for opinions though.

Comment 22

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

*** Bug 132533 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 23

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

*** Bug 93752 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 24

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

see also the attachment on bug 93752, I'll vote for that one personally, for how
this should look.

Comment 25

[Sascha Claus]

Attachment: Example of expected results with <DL>/<DT>/<DD>

As requested, sample output with <dl>.

Comment 26

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

I don't think we should change the look unless there's a usability win. I like
the current look, and the layout, and I'm sure other people do too. 

Gerv

Comment 27

[timeless]

arg, someone promised me they'd get this landed.  fwiw i've started using tabs a
lot and i'm getting really annoyed by that second table. my eyes expect to hit
it earlier in the tab order than i really do. not to mention that the text is bogus.

Comment 28

[Joel Peshkin]

Unloved bugs targetted for 2.18 but untouched since 9-15-2003 are being
retargeted to 2.20
If you plan to act on one immediately, go ahead and pull it back to 2.18.

Comment 29

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Bugzilla 2.20 feature set is now frozen as of 15 Sept 2004.  Anything flagged
enhancement that hasn't already landed is being pushed out.  If this bug is
otherwise ready to land, we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis, please set the
blocking2.20 flag to '?' if you think it qualifies.

Comment 30

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

So, um, we have a review+ from justdave on that patch, but it's really, really
old... what's up with that? What work needs to be done?

Comment 31

[Olav Vitters]

*** Bug 315622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 32

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

(In reply to comment #26)
> I don't think we should change the look unless there's a usability win. I like
> the current look, and the layout, and I'm sure other people do too. 

Personally I think the table is hidious. Nowhere else in bugzilla do we have a table with that web-a'la-1997 look. Are there really any more people out there that likes this table?

Additionally there are usability issues. It is compleatly illogical that the attachment number in the header is linked, but that the bug number is not. It is fairly easy to miss the bug-link since it's way off to the side.

And as timeless points out. Things are very confusing when tabbing through the page.

Comment 33

[Frédéric Buclin]

The trunk is now frozen to prepare Bugzilla 2.22. Enhancement bugs are retargetted to 2.24.

Comment 34

[Olav Vitters]

Attachment: Patch v1

Output is like attachment 76964 [details], except I didn't make the other links smaller (bugs following the first one).

Comment 35

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Comment on attachment 242354 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

this is nice looking, and it seems to render a lot faster in the browser, too.

Comment 36

[Olav Vitters]

Attachment: Patch v2

Forgot to run ./runtests.pl. This one fixes those found by it (FILTER stuff).

Comment 37

[victory <[e-mail]>]

*** Bug 353464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 38

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Comment on attachment 242408 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2

confirm-duplicate and midair are still wrong

Comment 39

[Olav Vitters]

Checking in skins/standard/global.css;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/skins/standard/global.css,v  <--  global.css
new revision: 1.26; previous revision: 1.25
done
Checking in template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl,v  <--  filterexceptions.pl
new revision: 1.84; previous revision: 1.83
done
Checking in template/en/default/attachment/created.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/attachment/created.html.tmpl,v  <--  created.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12
done
Checking in template/en/default/attachment/updated.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/attachment/updated.html.tmpl,v  <--  updated.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11
done
Checking in template/en/default/bug/process/bugmail.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/process/bugmail.html.tmpl,v  <--  bugmail.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6
done
Checking in template/en/default/bug/process/results.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/process/results.html.tmpl,v  <--  results.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10
done