[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla

Wed Dec 22 17:37:19 CET 2010

On 2010-12-22, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
+> On 22 December 2010 01:32, Frederic Janssens <fjanss at gmail.com> wrote:
+>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 17:07, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+>>
+>> In preparation of the future interaction (by xmlrpc) between the
+>> mageia-app-db site and the mageia bugzilla,  I have been testing
+>> http://bugs.mageia.org/ .
+>> Xmlrpc works, but it will be necessary to configure additional fields.
+>> The minimum would be to add an 'RPM Package' field (such as exists on
+>> https://qa.mandriva.com/).
+>>
+>
+> That's already agreed upon, whatever it's called, RPM Package or
+> Component (I am in favour of the former).
+
+ok
+
+>> First I think it would be usefull to have a multiline (Large Text Box)
+>> 'RPM Packages' field, instead of a single line (Free Text) field as
+>> used by mandriva.
+>> A single bug can concern more than one rpm. One thing mageia-app-db
+>> will do is search all bugs affecting an rpm. For that search to be
+>> meaningfull all affected rpms should be mentioned.
+>
+> 'One bug per report' is what we should do (did); if a bug originates
+> from more than one package, a separate report for each of them should
+> be opened with the Block/Dependency set correctly.
+
+Sorry for not beeing clear.
+What I propose is not for the case 'a bug originates from more than
+one package';
+but for the case 'a bug manifests itself in than one package'.
+(In fact I think I want to solve the same problem you want to solve with
+"with a whiteboard field to state if the bug affects more than one release (at
+least for now)"
+but in a more specific manner).
+
+>
+>> For the same reason, the way the rpms are mentioned should be
+>> 'standardised',
+>> as the search done by bugzilla can only be litteral.
+>>
+>
+> Usually one doesn't only search in the RPM Package field; experience
+> tell us that the affected package name will be mentioned many times in
+> both the summary and the description.
+>
+> And if you want to search in the RPM Package field, bugzilla has many
+> options to do so, look at the bottom of:
+> https://qa.mandriva.com/query.cgi?format=advanced
+
+Yes; but I am trying to solve the connection with mageia-app-db.
+With the xmlrpc interface it seems the search possibilities are more limited :
+(from http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/api/Bugzilla/WebService/Bug.html)
+:
+
+"
+search
+
+    UNSTABLE
+
+    Description
+
+        Allows you to search for bugs based on particular criteria.
+    Params
+
+        Unless otherwise specified in the description of a parameter,
+bugs are returned if they match exactly the criteria you specify in
+these parameters. That is, we don't match against substrings--if a bug
+is in the "Widgets" product and you ask for bugs in the "Widg"
+product, you won't get anything.
+
+        Criteria are joined in a logical AND. That is, you will be
+returned bugs that match all of the criteria, not bugs that match any
+of the criteria.
+
+        Each parameter can be either the type it says, or an array of
+the types it says. If you pass an array, it means "Give me bugs with
+any of these values." For example, if you wanted bugs that were in
+either the "Foo" or "Bar" products, you'd pass:
+
+         product => ['Foo', 'Bar']
+"
+
+>
+>> Something that does not exist in mandriva, but I think would be usefull,
+>> is a
+>> 'Fixed RPM Packages' that would be filled when the bug is fixed. FIXED
+>> is great, but where (or since which rpm)?
+>>
+>
+> IMHO, that's trivia; either the user is savvy enough / has the time to
+> trudge through the bug report to find out which package release fixes
+> an issue (which indicates he's the curious type, he'll at least skim
+> through the bug report anyway), or he's just going to update his
+> system and get the fix (the latter happens more often).
+
+Here the 'user' is mageia-app-db.
+
+
+>
+>> Perhaps also an 'Upstream' field which would, eventually, indicate
+>> where that bug is filed upstream.
+>>
+>
+> That's similar to the URL field in my proposal (see my previous post
+> in this thread).
+
+Ok.
+
+>
+>> Finally the "status whiteboard" could be enabled, and used to clearly
+>> explain a workaround, for open bugs (instead of having to figure it
+>> from the comments). (Eventually this field could also be used as the
+>> 'Fixed RPM Packages' field when the bug is closed. So it would be the
+>> 'Solution' field)
+>>
+>
+> I don't think this will be adequately useful; if the issue is fixed,
+> then all the user has to do is update his system. If it's not fixed
+> and affects a stable release then it should get added to the Errata
+> page for that release whether there's a workaround (or not); if it
+
+Still another place to look at. If it concerns the bug it would be
+better to have it visible in the bug.
+
+> affects Cauldron, well, Cauldron users are supposed to be
+> fireproof-ready, so they do read bug reports (or skim through them).
+
+How is the case represented where the bug is in release,
+and the fix is in cauldron ?
+
+
+>
+>> Apart from the "status whiteboard" which is a parameter to enable
+>> (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/parameters.html);
+>> the fields must be added as custom-fields
+>> (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/custom-fields.html)
+>>
+>>
+>> --
+>>
+>> Frederic
+>>
+>
+>
+>
+> --
+> Ahmad Samir
+>
+
+
+-- 
+
+Frederic
+