Hi Yavor, These seem like great patches. I'll be able to have a closer look soon.
Kristis
On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 23:40 +0300, Yavor Nikolov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As promised - I'm sending the patched version of Bugzilla.pm. I tested
> with latest versions only (scmbug 0.2.6.17 and Bugzilla 3.4.6):
> + Removed bz_lock/unlock_tables since that is incompatible with
> Bugzilla 3.2.x+. Transaction management implemented instead with
> bz_{start, commit, rollback}_transaction
> + Some checks have been removed since Bugzilla API has built-in
> checks when changing bug status & resolution.
> + A modified version of my previous fix in integration_add_comment is
> also included. I did it 1) to place bug update in transaction block;
> 2) to better handle logging and feedback on error (the problem was
> that with invalid user Bug->check calls die and things abort quite
> abruptly - svn user didn't get a message for root cause).
>
> Best regards,
> Yavor
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 00:47, Yavor Nikolov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Hi Kristis,
>
> (1) Replacing bz_{lock,unlock}_tables with
> bz_{start,commit,rollback}_transaction prevented the error
> from occurring and seemed updating to RESOLVED FIXED worked
> fine. (I haven't tested other scenarios).
> (2) Anyway - I have implemented status/resolution updating
> using Bugzilla perl API instead of direct database updates
> (seems more robust approach otherwise I'm afraid we may cause
> database corruption if database schema changes in future
> bugzilla versions /or maybe even this one/).
>
> I'll upload the patch for (2) soon. (I just want to add my
> changes in is_latest_version block since in current version
> I've probably broken some old version compatibility). So far
> things seem to work OK In my environment (tested changing to
> RESOLVED FIXED, ASSIGNED, ASSIGNED <user>, REOPENED, DUPLICATE
> <dup-id>).
>
> * Looking at scmbug Bugzilla.pm tracker code (and the modified
> method in particular) - things are getting much bloated with
> these many version-specific if/else if cases. I just wonder -
> wouldn't it be better to just refactor version-specific code
> as separate sub-classes (the right one instantiated by Daemon
> depending on specified version; or on specified class name)?
> That would make things look simpler and easier to maintain -
> at least for the most recent bugtracker versions.
>
> Regards,
> Yavor
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 21:31, Yavor Nikolov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kristis,
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 21:15, Kristis Makris
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Yavor,
>
> This is a big mistake on my part. I'm sorry.
>
> I thought that the status resolution work
> needed was already included in
> the patches from Elias and Uditha. I was not
> aware of the fact that
> bz_lock_tables was causing problems.
>
> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 18:09 +0200, Yavor
> Nikolov wrote:
> > Sorry for the wrong subject from initial
> report of this issue.
> >
> > Seems bugzilla 3.2+ removed bz_lock_tables
> in it's code and is
> > handling database changes in
> > bz_start_transaction/bz_commit_transaction
> blocks.
> >
> > I can see some earlier complains for this
> problem.. but it has been
> > announced that v0.26.17 is supporting status
> changes for bugzilla 3.4
> > now.
>
>
> Do you recall where ? I can't find it any
> report related to
> bz_lock_tables in the issue-tracker.
> Google for scmbug and bz_lock_tables may help for
> this. In particular I see following is related:
>
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bug-tracking.scmbug.user/2106
> However Alex's patch has just commented these calls to
> bz_lock_tables. I'm not sure what would be the best
> way to handle this - but at least seems a better idea
> to add bz_start_transaction/bz_commit_transaction as
> replacement of removed bz_lock*/bz_unlock* statements.
> Something similar has been mentioned here:
> http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=guy.pyrzak%
>
> 40gmail.com&passw=&list=developers&brief=on&func=archive-get-part&extra=200703/31
>
>
> Regards,
> Yavor
>
>
>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ scmbug-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
