Closed
Bug 1033394
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Switch bzexport to using the native Bugzilla REST API
Categories
(Developer Services :: Mercurial: bzexport, defect)
Developer Services
Mercurial: bzexport
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: emorley, Assigned: gps)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [kanban:engops:https://mozilla.kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/789] )
Attachments
(27 files, 5 obsolete files)
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
smacleod
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
smacleod
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
sfink
:
review+
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
|
Details |
(deleted),
text/x-review-board-request
|
emorley
:
review+
smacleod
:
review+
sfink
:
review+
|
Details |
bzexport currently uses:
https://api-dev.bugzilla.mozilla.org/latest/
The new endpoint, which "should" be identical is:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/bzapi/
Ted already landed the switch (as a no bug):
https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/rev/782f314c73d4
However this caused bug 1033258, so I had to revert in:
https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/rev/30b6d858ed1c
We should figure out what needs fixing in the compatibility layer so that both bzexport and other projects can switch to it without other changes (if possible).
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Summary: Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint once the cause of bug 1033258 fixed → Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint once bug 1033258 fixed
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
PSA: There is a new Python client API for the REST API: https://github.com/AutomatedTester/Bugsy. The package is checked into the version-control-tools repo. It still has a ways to go before it can support bzexport's needs. But I'd like to think bzexport's custom Bugzilla Python module is going the way of the dodo.
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Sorry, guess I should have filed a bug to track that! Looks like we can re-land this.
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
glob says the production push that will pick up bug 1033258 should be in ~12 hours, so if nobody beats me to it I'll re-land tomorrow.
Assignee: nobody → ted
(In reply to Ted Mielczarek [:ted.mielczarek] from comment #3)
> glob says the production push that will pick up bug 1033258 should be in ~12
> hours, so if nobody beats me to it I'll re-land tomorrow.
this is now live.
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Reverted since review request comments are missing from bugmails when using the native APIs, whereas they are not when using the legacy bzapi (see bug 1054181 & bug 508541). This issue is also affecting reviewboard integration.
https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/rev/dfb611fc22be
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Depends on: 508541
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Summary: Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint once bug 1033258 fixed → Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint once bug 508541 fixed
Updated•10 years ago
|
Summary: Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint once bug 508541 fixed → Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
This was also causing the following when attaching new version of patches:
Error: There is no flag with the id '968857'.
abort: Could not update attachment 8483868 [details] [diff] [review]: HTTP Error 404:
Updated•10 years ago
|
Product: Other Applications → Developer Services
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
The blocker bugs here should be fixed now. Can we try this again?
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
The version-control-tools repo now supports running BMO (via Docker) as part of tests. We can actually write reasonable tests for bzexport now. I would encourage this since bzexport's Mercurial extension currently has 0% test coverage.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
Here is a template for a bzexport test using BMO running in Docker. The
test fails, possibly because the Dockerized BMO isn't exposing bzapi?
I'm not sure and I have other priorities to look at now (reviewboard).
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: ted → gps
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
I really wish bzexport had a field for "don't assign bug when uploading"
Assignee: gps → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Gregory Szorc [:gps] from comment #11)
> I really wish bzexport had a field for "don't assign bug when uploading"
--no-take-bug iirc
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [kanban:engops:https://kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/227]
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [kanban:engops:https://kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/227] → [kanban:engops:https://mozilla.kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/789] [kanban:engops:https://kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/227]
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [kanban:engops:https://mozilla.kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/789] [kanban:engops:https://kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/227] → [kanban:engops:https://mozilla.kanbanize.com/ctrl_board/6/789]
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → emorley
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8529009 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8529012 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Comment hidden (obsolete) |
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #7)
> This was also causing the following when attaching new version of patches:
> Error: There is no flag with the id '968857'.
> abort: Could not update attachment 8483868 [details] [diff] [review]: HTTP
> Error 404:
I've tracked this down to bug 1105433.
We'll need to wait until that's fixed before trying to land this again.
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8503302 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•10 years ago
|
||
I just added some .t tests for bzexport to version-control-tools. They run Bugzilla inside Docker. If we write enough tests, we'll uncover bugs in bzapi. I may very well go on a bzexport test-writing binge later today.
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(sphink)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(smacleod)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(emorley)
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•10 years ago
|
||
/r/2129 - tests: dump more bug state
/r/2131 - bzexport: test that uploading a replacement patch works
/r/2133 - bzexport: add test for reviewer selection
/r/2135 - bzexport: partially implement reviewer switching test
/r/2137 - bzexport: enable loading modules from version-control-tools
/r/2139 - bzexport: use win_get_folder_path from mozhg.auth
/r/2141 - bzexport: use profile path finding from mozhg.auth
/r/2143 - bzexport: use profiles loading code from mozhg.auth
/r/2145 - bzexport: use mozhg.auth for finding cookies from profile
/r/2147 - bzexport: use mozhg.auth.getbugzillaauth
/r/2149 - bzexport: support for using a requests.Session for making requests
/r/2151 - bzexport: use REST API to obsolete attachments (bug 1033394)
Pull down these commits:
hg pull review -r f74d43e4dd47d040b80f8b2015c78eb515921e33
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2127/#review1371
A few comments on the state of the series.
First, I just noticed some local test failures due to expected bug status mismatch. Lots of `CONFIRMED` should be `UNCONFIRMED`.
Second, I should probably write more tests around bzexport auth.
Third, I should probably deprecate the `bzexport.username` config variables. I imagine some people have username but no password defined. When we switch to `mozhg.auth`, we'll look in `bugzilla.username` instead of `bzexport.username`. Upon finding nothing there, we'll prompt for it. Users will be like "wtf, I have the username defined." I like pro-actively notifying users of deprecation. Alternatively, we could teach `mozhg.auth` about pre-defined username values. But that would mean supporting `bzexport.username` indefinitely. I'd prefer we encourage people to switch to `bugzilla.username`, as that is used by the `reviewboard` extension as well and saves people from having multiple definitions.
FWIW, the `mozhg.auth` code is already extensively tested. We just need to review the interaction with bzexport.
Reporter | ||
Comment 25•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2135/#review1373
++ for this :-)
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: emorley → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2147/#review1377
::: hgext/bzexport/bzauth.py
(Diff revision 1)
> - if not username:
> - username = ui.prompt("Enter username for %s:" % bugzilla, default='')
> - if not password:
> - password = ui.getpass("Enter password for %s: " % username)
The equivalent logic in getbugzillaauth() only prompts for the password if the username isn't set (since the conditionals are nested over there). ie: it's no longer possible to set just the username in the hgrc, and enter the password by prompt.
If this is intentional, that's fine - just wanted to call it out in case not :-)
Reporter | ||
Comment 27•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8545777 [details]
MozReview Request: bz://1033394/gps
Thank you for doing this :-)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(emorley) → feedback+
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → gps
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 29•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2147/#review1389
> The equivalent logic in getbugzillaauth() only prompts for the password if the username isn't set (since the conditionals are nested over there). ie: it's no longer possible to set just the username in the hgrc, and enter the password by prompt.
>
> If this is intentional, that's fine - just wanted to call it out in case not :-)
That seems bad -- IMHO, saving passwords in config files, especially if they're unencrypted, is awful and should be heavily discouraged (yet still allowed). Having just the username in the config file is totally fine, on the other hand (even though it's crap from a usability POV to enter the password constantly.) So disallowing just-username is an encouragement to put a password in the config file.
Comment 30•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2149/#review1391
Wow this UI is confusing.
Comment 31•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2145/#review1393
Er... this patch seems to remove the old code and import the new code with a new name, but I didn't see where it switched to it. Oh well, I will just assume this patch series converges.
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2145/#review1395
mozhg.auth has existed for a while. It was written as part of the MozReview work. The code is heavily based on bzexport.
Comment 33•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2143/#review1397
Hrm. This returns the first profile. Unless you're sorting them in a useful way, this is going to break my setup. Though the comments seem to indicate that this may be a temporary state, and eventually you'll search all profiles. I'll keep reading.
Comment 34•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2141/#review1399
It's a little weird to give r+ based on switching to mysterious code I haven't read, but I'm lazy and it's tested, so whatever.
Comment 35•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2139/#review1401
It's sad that the new code is identical, since it's ugly code. Oh well.
Comment 36•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2137/#review1403
Now running a mystery file ../bootstrap.py, after importing things. La de da.
Comment 37•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2135/#review1405
There's no way to mark a test as an expected failure?
(And am I now re-reviewing stuff edmorley has r+'d? RB is so confusing...)
Comment 38•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 39•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 40•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2129/#review1411
It might be nice to have options for what to include, but this doesn't seem too crazy yet.
Reporter | ||
Comment 41•10 years ago
|
||
My pass was more of a f+
Comment 42•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 43•10 years ago
|
||
Ok, I've reviewed a bunch of pieces here. I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out what else I should look at, or how far along these changes are. I didn't see anything that made me more comfortable about the profiles[0] thing, at least, so I know at least one of these isn't marked shipit yet.
Reporter | ||
Comment 44•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Steve Fink [:sfink, :s:] from comment #43)
> I didn't
> see anything that made me more comfortable about the profiles[0] thing, at
> least, so I know at least one of these isn't marked shipit yet.
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2147/ makes bzexport use:
https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/file/f7ba7ce1adda/pylib/mozhg/mozhg/auth.py#l62
Comment 45•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ed Morley [:edmorley] from comment #44)
> (In reply to Steve Fink [:sfink, :s:] from comment #43)
> > I didn't
> > see anything that made me more comfortable about the profiles[0] thing, at
> > least, so I know at least one of these isn't marked shipit yet.
>
> https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2147/ makes bzexport use:
> https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/file/f7ba7ce1adda/
> pylib/mozhg/mozhg/auth.py#l62
Ah, so it does. Thanks.
Comment 46•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2143/#review1419
Ok, the badness goes away later.
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(sphink) → review+
Comment 47•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 48•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2145/#review1427
Sorry. That wasn't my point, but it turns out I was blind. It does indeed switch to the new name in this very patch. Ignore me.
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(sphink)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(emorley)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: feedback+
Assignee | ||
Comment 49•10 years ago
|
||
/r/2129 - tests: dump more bug state
/r/2261 - bugzilla: do not use Bugsy for fetching bugs
/r/2263 - testing: add cc, blocks, and depends_on to bug dump
/r/2131 - bzexport: test that uploading a replacement patch works
/r/2133 - bzexport: add test for reviewer selection
/r/2135 - bzexport: partially implement reviewer switching test
/r/2137 - bzexport: enable loading modules from version-control-tools
/r/2139 - bzexport: use win_get_folder_path from mozhg.auth
/r/2141 - bzexport: use profile path finding from mozhg.auth
/r/2143 - bzexport: use profiles loading code from mozhg.auth
/r/2145 - bzexport: use mozhg.auth for finding cookies from profile
/r/2147 - bzexport: use mozhg.auth.getbugzillaauth
/r/2149 - bzexport: support for using a requests.Session for making requests
/r/2151 - bzexport: use REST API to obsolete attachments (bug 1033394)
/r/2265 - bzexport: deprecate bzexport.username and bzexport.password
/r/2267 - bzexport: test for assigning a bug
/r/2269 - bzexport: test for CC list on newbug
/r/2271 - bzexport: test for setting bug dependencies with newbug
/r/2273 - bzexport: add an API for performing REST requests
/r/2275 - bzexport: use REST for creating bugs
/r/2277 - bzexport: add test for reviewing feedback
/r/2279 - bzexport: fetch attachments via REST API
/r/2281 - bzexport: use REST API for attachment creation
/r/2283 - bzexport: use REST API for getting and updating bugs
/r/2285 - bzexport: use REST to obtain information about a user
/r/2287 - bzexport: search for users using REST API
Pull down these commits:
hg pull review -r 1fae1cb2295b07593d9491adb5d746f7a01891eb
Assignee | ||
Comment 50•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2127/#review1431
With this latest patch series, I've killed all uses of bzAPI except `bzapi/configuration`. That one is slightly more non-trivial than the others because the API doesn't map nicely to what's in the REST API AFAICT. And, some semi-complicated caching code in bzexport doesn't hurt either.
I still need to write cookie tests for this. I wouldn't be surprised if cookie auth were somehow busted.
I'm feeling pretty good about the test thoroughness. If we roll this out and it breaks something, it should be relatively easy to code up a test and code a fix to what we know the local Bugzilla is willing to accept.
Assignee | ||
Comment 51•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2143/#review1435
There is a custom sort function. The default profile is always first. So, behavior is preserved.
One thing that may bite us is when mozhg.auth attempts to read *all* profiles and returns cookies from the first one it finds.
I am very receptive to ideas to improve the configurability of mozhg.auth to work in more use cases. As I said, the module is very well tested, so we just need to write the code to appease people.
Reporter | ||
Comment 52•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 53•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2269/#review1443
Good spot, thank you :-)
Reporter | ||
Comment 54•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 55•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2265/#review1447
::: hgext/bzexport/__init__.py
(Diff revision 1)
> + 'use bugzilla.password instead)\n')
Perhaps we could add "Or alternatively use the cookie authentication options instead." to promote moving away from password. (I'd suggest many people don't realise cookie support now exists).
Reporter | ||
Comment 56•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 57•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 58•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 59•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 60•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 61•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 62•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8545777 [details]
MozReview Request: bz://1033394/gps
Take this as somewhere between an f+ and an r+, it's probably best if the others take a look too. Thank you for all the cleanup! :-)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(emorley) → review+
Comment 63•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 64•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2279/#review1603
::: hgext/bzexport/__init__.py
(Diff revision 1)
> try:
> - bug = json.load(urlopen(ui, req))
> - except Exception, e:
> - raise util.Abort(_("Could not load info for bug %s: %s") % (bug, str(e)))
> + bugs = bz.get_attachments(auth, bugid)
> + except Exception as e:
> + raise util.Abort(e.message)
> +
> + attachments = bugs['bugs'][bugid]
Huh?
bug = get_attachments()?
attachments = bugs['bugs'][bugid]?
Assuming this code is correct, then maybe
bug_attachments = get_attachments()
attachments = bug_attachments['bugs'][bugid]
Comment 65•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 66•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2127/#review1599
::: hgext/bzexport/__init__.py
(Diff revision 2)
> + aid = result['attachments'].keys()[0]
I'd prefer a longer name than 'aid'. Took me a second to figure out it was attachment_id. attachment_id, attach_id, att_id would all be fine.
Comment 67•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 68•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 69•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 70•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 71•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 72•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 73•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ed Morley [:edmorley] from comment #62)
> Comment on attachment 8545777 [details]
> MozReview Request: bz://1033394/gps
>
> Take this as somewhere between an f+ and an r+, it's probably best if the
> others take a look too. Thank you for all the cleanup! :-)
Personally, I think edmorley counts as an r+, there's nothing my eyeballs can really add above his, other than just being an additional set.
(And can I request that RB *not* post individual Ship It! comments? Buffer them up and post them all as one comment, maybe, or make the status more visible in RB and don't bother posting them at all. Even for people who want bugzilla to track everything, I don't think it helps.)
Comment 74•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8545777 [details]
MozReview Request: bz://1033394/gps
I think I looked at everything of interest (so far? I don't know if there's more that'll happen here.)
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(sphink) → review+
Comment 75•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Steve Fink [:sfink, :s:] from comment #73)
> (And can I request that RB *not* post individual Ship It! comments? Buffer
> them up and post them all as one comment, maybe, or make the status more
> visible in RB and don't bother posting them at all. Even for people who want
> bugzilla to track everything, I don't think it helps.)
Yeah, we are almost certainly going to reduce the amount of mirroring from Review Board to Bugzilla and make the former the source of truth for anything reviewed by MozReview. Furthermore, anything mirrored will probably have bugmail suppressed in favour of Review Board emails (although admittedly we might have to tweak those to avoid the same spam coming from a different source).
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review+
Comment 76•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 77•10 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 78•10 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/2265/#review1633
> Perhaps we could add "Or alternatively use the cookie authentication options instead." to promote moving away from password. (I'd suggest many people don't realise cookie support now exists).
I'll amend the message before landing to say something like "or log into Bugzilla using Firefox".
Assignee | ||
Comment 79•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 80•10 years ago
|
||
Comment 81•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8545777 [details]
MozReview Request: bz://1033394/gps
I know you just landed this, but I just finished looking over the parts you asked r? to me. LGTM.
Attachment #8545777 -
Flags: review?(smacleod) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 82•10 years ago
|
||
Everything I've written has been reviewed and landed.
As mentioned in comment 50, we now use REST for everything except bzapi/configuration. I'll file a follow-up to track that.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago → 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Summary: Switch bzexport to the new bzapi compatibility layer endpoint → Switch bzexport to using the native Bugzilla REST API
Assignee | ||
Comment 84•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8545777 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8618186 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618187 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618188 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618189 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618190 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618191 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618192 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618193 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618194 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618195 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618196 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618197 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618198 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618199 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618200 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618201 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618202 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618203 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618204 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618205 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618206 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618207 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618208 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618209 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618210 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8618211 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 85•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 86•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 87•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 88•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 89•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 90•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 91•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 92•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 93•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 94•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 95•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 96•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 97•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 98•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 99•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 100•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 101•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 102•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 103•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 104•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 105•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 106•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 107•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 108•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 109•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 110•9 years ago
|
||
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•