Enable project flags and keywords for webcompat team
Categories
(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: Administration, task)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: emceeaich, Unassigned)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
Webcompat will move from whiteboard tags to keywords and a project flag to manage their work.
add the program flag with values
webcompat: ---, ?, -, P1, P2, P3
remove the existing flag
webcompat: ---, ?, +, -
Flag => program flag
- webcompat:--- => webcompat:---
- webcompat:? => webcompat:?
- webcompat:- => webcompat:-
- webcompat:+ => webcompat:p[1,2,3] depending on whiteboard
Whiteboard => keywords
- [needsdiagnosis] => webcompat:needs-diagnosis
- [needscontact] => webcompat:needs-contact
- [contactready] => webcompat:contact-ready
- [sitewait] => webcompat:site-wait
Whiteboard => program flag
- [webcompat] => ?
- [webcompat:p1] => webcompat:p1 if webcompat:+
- [webcompat:p2] => webcompat:p2 if webcompat:+
- [webcompat:p3] => webcompat:p3 if webcompat:+
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
:dylan, we need to turn the webcompat
flag into a program flag.
Should I create a webcompat-new
program flag, set that flag on the basis of existing metadata, get rid of the old flag, and then rename the new flag?
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Emma Humphries, Bugmaster βοΈπΈπ§ββοΈβ¨ (she/her) [:emceeaich] (UTC-8) needinfo? me from comment #1)
:dylan, we need to turn the
webcompat
flag into a program flag.Should I create a
webcompat-new
program flag, set that flag on the basis of existing metadata, get rid of the old flag, and then rename the new flag?
That might work! We should test on dev of course.
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
Who should be able to set the webcompat
program flag values? Should that be anyone with editbugs, should we make a group to set the other values?
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Let's start with editbugs. The list of P1 P2 P3 bugs is really small -- we'll catch any weirdness there I think.
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
I've created webcompat-priority and moving the whiteboard tags next.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
I've updated the bugs to use the new flags and keywords.
I have two questions:
- if a bug has the whiteboard tag
[webcompat]
is the correspondingwebcompat-priority
? or something else?
When I look at thewebcompat
flag for those bugs (the one we are deprecating) I find three which have the whiteboard tag[webcompat]
andwebcompat+
https://mzl.la/2VyljxC
Are these just bugs with inconsistent metadata we need to clean up, or doeswebcompat-priority
need a+
value - the four webcompat: keywords: needs-diagnosis, needs-contact, contact-ready, and site-wait need descriptions
I'm holding off cleaning up the whiteboard tags to make sure I've transformed the data correctly.
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
It's kind of confusing, but [webcompat] does not necessarily imply webcompat?. Historically it's just mean "this is a bug that originated from webcompat.com, or affects a site". Nowadays, for important core interop issues we nominate things for tracking via webcompat?, and have kept the [webcompat] so I can add the priority, e.g., [webcompat:p1].
To be extra safe, I think Karl might be tracking the whiteboard, so let's consult him. Karl, would it break anything for you if Emma changed the [webcompat] whiteboard bugs by setting webcompat-priority: ?
.
needs-diagnosis: Issues in the process of being analyzed to discover the root cause of the problem.
needs-contact: Issues which have been diagnosed and requires us to find a contact information.
contact-ready: Issues where the contact information has been found and are ready to be contacted. Anyone can do this. Be nice.
site-wait: Issues where we've done outreach and are waiting for the site to make a change.
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
Do we need webcompat-priority:untriaged or :+ for those cases?
Thanks for the keyword descriptions.
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Looking again at the list, I think I would want [webcompat] to signify webcompat-priority: ? (that's effectively untriaged, we use the ?s to make decisions).
The question remains for Karl if he still has a use for the whiteboard item.
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
I do have mail search filters tracking [webcompat
(not [webcompat]
because mike introduced priority a while ago.)
But filters can be updated.
Let's seeβ¦
ok I just cleaned up my filters, and erased a couple of them and kept one only dependent on [webcompat
Let's do it. We will fix it step by step. There are some bugs with [webcompat
(whiteboard), some with webcompat:(?|+|-)
(flag), and some with both.
Thanks a lot Emma for all the cool work.
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
Emma, hopefully not too late -- but could we also add a value of "revisit" to the program flag?
(I forgot we were using a [webcompat-revisit] query to check out bugs we've triaged 6 months or so down the road, but aren't ready to prioritize them now)
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
I'm looking through this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/report.cgi?x_axis_field=cf_webcompat_priority&y_axis_field=status_whiteboard&z_axis_field=&query_format=report-table&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&resolution=---&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&longdesc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_id=&bug_id_type=anyexact&votes=&votes_type=greaterthaneq&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=exact&email2=&emailtype3=substring&email3=&chfieldvalue=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&j_top=AND&f1=cf_webcompat_priority&o1=notequals&v1=---&f2=noop&o2=noop&v2=&format=table&action=wrap and https://mzl.la/2DJKRxz to make sure we're mapping correctly
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
Can I go ahead and disable the old webcompat flag?
We can remove the old whiteboard tags after that.
I've created a GitHub issue to get a dashboard built: https://github.com/mozilla/fission-dashboard/issues/5
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
Note: there is a [webcompat-sci-exclude] whiteboard tag I'm experimenting with that I'd like to keep for now.
Reporter | ||
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
Done.
Please remove all the [webcompat whiteboard tags except the [webcompat-sci-exclude].
Comment 18•6 years ago
|
||
Emma, sorry to pester, but are we still planning on adding a "revisit" value to the program flag? That came up in triage today. Thanks!
Comment 19•6 years ago
|
||
(once that's done, i can update the values from [webcompat-revisit] before Dylan nukes them, there's only 20: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=%5Bwebcompat-revisit%5D&list_id=14726674)
Reporter | ||
Comment 20•6 years ago
|
||
That value has been added, remember its the "Webcompat Priority", not the "Webcompat" flag.
If that's not showing up for you, ping Dylan?
Comment 21•6 years ago
|
||
Yes, sorry. Webcompat Priority.
Dylan?
Comment 22•6 years ago
|
||
I see the revisit value for webcompat-priority for Firefox bugs as well as the other products enabled. Have you tried shift-reload to see if it will show up for you now?
dkl
Comment 23•5 years ago
|
||
Hi David, looking at this bug in Core, for example, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1432935. I don't have a revisit value. Same for a bug in Firefox.
Just confirmed, and twisniewski can't see it either. Would we need special rights to see that value (maybe??)?
Comment 24•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #23)
Created attachment 9068524 [details]
after shift-reloadHi David, looking at this bug in Core, for example, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1432935. I don't have a revisit value. Same for a bug in Firefox.
Just confirmed, and twisniewski can't see it either. Would we need special rights to see that value (maybe??)?
Ugh sorry. I see now that the 'revisit' value had a group setting of editusers instead of editbugs. Which does explain why I could see it and you could not :) I have fixed it to be editbugs and you should be good now.
dkl
Comment 25•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #19)
(once that's done, i can update the values from [webcompat-revisit] before Dylan nukes them, there's only 20: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=%5Bwebcompat-revisit%5D&list_id=14726674)
You should be able to complete this task now and then close the bug.
Comment 26•5 years ago
|
||
Awesome, yep. I see it now. :)
Comment 27•5 years ago
|
||
OK, that's done. I think the remaining bit is just "remove the existing flag". Emma, should I file a new bug for that?
Reporter | ||
Comment 28•5 years ago
|
||
No, I think we can clean up the existing values in this bug.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 29•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Emma Humphries, Bugmaster βοΈπΈπ§ββοΈβ¨ (she/her) [:emceeaich] (UTC-8) needinfo? me from comment #28)
No, I think we can clean up the existing values in this bug.
When you say cleanup do you mean move the old webcompat flag values to the new webcompat priority flag using the same values set? Maybe we can script that. There are currently 315 bugs with ^webcompat(?|+|-)$ set.
Comment 30•5 years ago
|
||
Also this can be done through the mass bug change UI but quite a bit of email will be sent out.
Comment 31•5 years ago
|
||
I think we just need to remove the old webcompat flag from the backend. We already migrated webcompat? -> WebCompat Priority?, etc once before, no need to do it again :)
Comment 32•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #31)
I think we just need to remove the old webcompat flag from the backend. We already migrated webcompat? -> WebCompat Priority?, etc once before, no need to do it again :)
It is already set as inactive which means it cannot be used for new values so that should be sufficient. So should we close this now?
Comment 33•5 years ago
|
||
Sure, I guess that works!
Description
•