Closed
Bug 113383
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 23 years ago
link to dependent bug in "dependent bug changed state" notification
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Email Notifications, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.16
People
(Reporter: myk, Assigned: myk)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
When a bug on which another bug depends changes state, users on the dependant bug get email about it. The email contains a link to the dependant bug but does not contain a link to the depending bug. It should.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
This patch adds a link to the depending bug and clarifies the message explaining what has happened. This fix should also be incorporated into the fix for bug 65477 via linkification of the "bug xxx" text rather than a separate link underneath that text.
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 60281 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1: adds link and clarifies explanatory text You changed from "This bug" to "Bug $id". Was that intentional? I don't think one is better over teh other, so r=bbaetz. Second reviewer should test this, since I can't ATM.
Attachment #60281 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
>You changed from "This bug" to "Bug $id". Was that intentional?
Yes. I have often found the phrase "This bug" to be confusing in emails about
depending bug state changes because the bug to which the pronoun "this" refers
is not explicitly named in the body of the message. Its bug number and summary
appears in the subject line, and a link to the bug appears in the body, but
these references have been insufficient to enable me to understand the pronoun's
referent. Explicitly naming the bug instead of using the pronoun makes things
clearer.
I can change the wording back and file a new bug on it if there is controversy
over the wording, but otherwise the change is so small that we might as well
roll them together.
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 60281 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1: adds link and clarifies explanatory text >+ "\nBug $id depends on bug $bug, which changed state.\n\n" . >+ "$urlbase/show_bug.cgi?id=$bug\n\n" . >+ "Bug $bug Summary: $summary\n\n"; Shouldn't it just be a single \n instead of \n\n at the end of the first two lines? Also, why not put the URL as the 3rd line? This way you can read both informative lines and the link is neatly at the bottom?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•23 years ago
|
||
>Shouldn't it just be a single \n instead of \n\n at the end of the first two >lines? Sure, why not. >Also, why not put the URL as the 3rd line? This way you can read both >informative lines >and the link is neatly at the bottom? Works for me. This patch contains these two formatting changes.
Attachment #60281 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•23 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Attachment #63972 -
Attachment is patch: false
Attachment #63972 -
Attachment mime type: text/plain → image/png
Comment 9•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 63974 [details] [diff] [review] patch v3: fixes the extra slash problem r=caillon
Attachment #63974 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
it's cheap, it's easy, let's get it in to 2.16!
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 63974 [details] [diff] [review] patch v3: fixes the extra slash problem Looks good to me... r=jake
Attachment #63974 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
Checking in processmail; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/processmail,v <-- processmail new revision: 1.74; previous revision: 1.73 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
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
•