Closed
Bug 30345
(DupeLoop)
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Can mark bugs duplicates of each other [dupe loops]
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, defect, P2)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.20
People
(Reporter: CodeMachine, Assigned: LpSolit)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [relations:dupl] consistency)
Attachments
(2 files)
(deleted),
patch
|
myk
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I would expect that "duplicate" would be an acyclic relation. However, I have
marked bug #26942 and bug #30341 as duplicates of each other.
Does the bug system, know what bug something has been marked a dupe of, or is it
just "RESOLVED/DUPLICATE", with an annotation?
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
Isn't that what VERIFIED/DUPLICATE is for? To indicate that the "duplicate"
mark is correct?
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•25 years ago
|
||
Yes, but there is no need to bother the verifier in this situation since it is
invalid. It's better for the resolver to find out immediately they did the
wrong thing.
Comment 3•25 years ago
|
||
Well.. the "verifier" of a duplicate is usually the owner of the "original" bug.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•25 years ago
|
||
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying.
If you're saying that it's the same person as the resolver, all the more
important to do this since they might miss it otherwise.
If you're saying that it's the owner of the bug that it has been marked a
duplicate of, I've never noticed that happening (but then I might not have been
looking), but in any case I'm not sure how it would affect my previous comment.
I was under the impression this is the job of the QA contact.
Comment 5•25 years ago
|
||
It's usually the owner of the bug it has been marked a duplicate of.. see my
bug #29731 for an example.
Comment 6•25 years ago
|
||
Err, never mind, he was the QA contact for that one too.. hmm. Maybe you're
right.
Comment 7•25 years ago
|
||
tara@tequilarista.org is the new owner of Bugzilla and Bonsai. (For details,
see my posting in netscape.public.mozilla.webtools,
news://news.mozilla.org/38F5D90D.F40E8C1A%40geocast.com .)
Assignee: terry → tara
i can see where this would be bad, but i also see it as
a) an edge case
b) trying to prevent stupidity above and beyond normal.
i'm tempted to mark this as won't fix, please comment.
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•24 years ago
|
||
Eh? This is a bug in Bugzilla! We're well aware it's trivial, that's why it
says "trivial" in the severity!
Please stop stomping on bugs you don't want to fix with WONTFIX. If you don't
want to fix it, reassign it to nobody@mozilla.org. WONTFIX is only for things
that it is a bad idea to fix.
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
sorry, you're right, this should be fixed. please don't spit bile at me while
making comments though. it's hard walking through 400 bugs.
fixing this is really hard, because there's no easy way of being able to walk
the database and figure out how a bug got closed as a duplicate of another one
without doing additional queries in bugs activity or in the comment logs, which
are the only two places that duplicates are regarded afaik.
thanks for the comment i was asking for. please turn down the anger setting
though.
Comment 11•24 years ago
|
||
this would be pretty simple with bug 25693 (keep track of what is a duplicate
of what, and count duplicates).
Comment 12•24 years ago
|
||
Adding default QA contact to all open Webtools/Bugzilla bugs lacking one.
Sorry for the spam.
QA Contact: matty
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•24 years ago
|
||
In the BZ3 world this will probably be easier (I think).
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 3.2
Comment 14•24 years ago
|
||
This needs to be fixed in 2.x. This can cause some looping problems if anyone
does any reports on duplicate trees with the new duplicates table.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 3.2 → Bugzilla 2.16
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
What do we do for existing problems? Should there be a sanity check on
dependency relations?
Severity: trivial → normal
Priority: P3 → P2
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
moving
Assignee: tara → myk
Component: Bugzilla → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: Webtools → Bugzilla
Version: other → 2.10
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [relations:dupl]
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [relations:dupl] → [relations:dupl] consistency
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
I thought this wasn't possible. :-(
Gerv
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
We are currently trying to wrap up Bugzilla 2.16. We are now close enough to
release time that anything that wasn't already ranked at P1 isn't going to make
the cut. Thus this is being retargetted at 2.18. If you strongly disagree with
this retargetting, please comment, however, be aware that we only have about 2
weeks left to review and test anything at this point, and we intend to devote
this time to the remaining bugs that were designated as release blockers.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.16 → Bugzilla 2.18
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
No, its dependancy loops which aren't possible. Maybe that code should be made
more generic, and used here?
Comment 20•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 154617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Alias: DupeLoop
Summary: Can mark bugs duplicates of each other. → Can mark bugs duplicates of each other [dupe loops]
Comment 21•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 180403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 22•21 years ago
|
||
With a fix for bug 68611 in place, the check here would become a matter of
whether the end-of-chain is equal to the bug that you are attempting to resolve
duplicate. (i.e. a single straightforward comparison)
Comment 23•21 years ago
|
||
All 2.18 bugs that haven't been touched in over 60 days and aren't flagged as
blockers are getting pushed out to 2.20
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.18 → Bugzilla 2.20
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
This bug has not been touched by its owner in over six months, even though it is
targeted to 2.20, for which the freeze is 10 days away. Unsetting the target
milestone, on the assumption that nobody is actually working on it or has any
plans to soon.
If you are the owner, and you plan to work on the bug, please give it a real
target milestone. If you are the owner, and you do *not* plan to work on it,
please reassign it to nobody@bugzilla.org or a .bugs component owner. If you are
*anybody*, and you get this comment, and *you* plan to work on the bug, please
reassign it to yourself if you have the ability.
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.20 → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 25•19 years ago
|
||
Checks whether a loop would be generated. I added a protection to the
validation to prevent an infinite 'while' loop for installations which already
have loops.
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.20
Comment 26•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 194328 [details] [diff] [review]
patch, v1
>+ [% ELSIF error == "dupe_loop_detected" %]
>+ [% title = "Loop detected among duplicates" %]
>+ You cannot mark [% terms.bug %] [%+ bug_id FILTER html %] as
>+ a duplicate of
>+ [% IF dupe_of == bug_id %]
>+ itself
>+ [% ELSE %]
>+ [%+ terms.bug %] [%+ dupe_of FILTER html %], else
>+ a loop would be generated
>+ [% END %].
Nit: "You cannot mark <bug> as a duplicate of <bug> because it would create a
duplicate loop."
Otherwise looks good, r=myk. Thanks for the fix! I like knocking down these
five-digit bugs.
Attachment #194328 -
Flags: review?(myk) → review+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: approval+
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•19 years ago
|
||
we should take it for 2.20 too.
No longer depends on: 68611
Flags: approval2.20?
Comment 28•19 years ago
|
||
yeah, this looks low-risk enough to go into 2.20, and it does prevent some minor
DB corruption.
Flags: approval2.20? → approval2.20+
Comment 29•19 years ago
|
||
based on the type of changes required to make this apply to 2.20 I'd appreciate
getting a separate patch posted here for 2.20
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•19 years ago
|
||
check_form_field_defined was CheckFormFieldDefined in 2.20.
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•19 years ago
|
||
tip:
Checking in process_bug.cgi;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi,v <-- process_bug.cgi
new revision: 1.283; previous revision: 1.282
done
Checking in template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl,v
<-- user-error.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.122; previous revision: 1.121
done
2.20rc2:
Checking in process_bug.cgi;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/process_bug.cgi,v <-- process_bug.cgi
new revision: 1.263.2.2; previous revision: 1.263.2.1
done
Checking in template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/user-error.html.tmpl,v
<-- user-error.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.115.2.4; previous revision: 1.115.2.3
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 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
•