On the template "template/default/query/query.atml", the keyword search box is not displayed unless "have_keywords" is defined to the template engine. Unfortunately, in version 1.93 of query.cgi that value was defined only if the following condition is true: 1.93 (gerv%ger 18-Nov-01): $vars->{'have_keywords'} = scalar(%::legal_keywords); The legal_keywords is an array not a hash, and so the value fails to be set properly.

This is fixed in the patch over in bug 110711; it's a dupe of bug 110712. Gerv *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 110712 ***

clearing target milestone on resolved non-FIXED bugs so they'll get re-triaged if they get reopened.

I don't see how this is a dupe of bug 110712. However, this patch is included in the proposed patch for the mega-patch included in bug 110711, so I'll make this dependant on it instead.

okay, maybe dupe is more appropriate, but against the proper bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 110711 ***

REOPENing this bug, a patch was submitted a month and a half ago to fix a serious usability issue and it got burried in an ubber-patch on a technicallity. I don't see the sense in holding up this bug to add <label> tags to the query page (don't get me wrong, label tags are nice, but keyword searches are nicer).

*** Bug 126469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Setting bug owner to patch author.

Comment on attachment 63982 [details] [diff] [review] patch to allow the keywords query box to be displayed properly Short, simple, prefect. r= jake

Also got an r= justdave in IRC Checking in query.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/query.cgi,v <-- query.cgi new revision: 1.96; previous revision: 1.95 done

This is silly. The patch involved is not an "uber-patch", it's 20 changed lines and some indenting change. I'm not happy about how shabbily that patch has been treated, and have been lobbying hard to give it the attention it deserves. The amount of time you spent working on this bug could have given that patch first review. Now, I have to go back to that patch, fix the conflicts in it, and re-upload it - which was a job I really didn't need. </grumpy> Gerv