Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs

[Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org>]

On 12/3/12 9:06 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
> > On 12/3/12 7:45 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> > > New bugs are showing up in the CONFIRMED state.  Shouldn't they be
> > > UNCONFIRMED?
> >
> > They should, but I don't think any humans have created bugs since the
> > last configuration change (the fuzz failure reporting script explicitly
> > sets the status to CONFIRMED).
>
> I was thinking of bug 8044 came in yesterday at 21:37 EST which I
> thought was after the last config change (your last email about a config
> change was yesterday at 20:35 EST).

After exploring the rabbit hole a little further it turns out everyone
was in the "canconfirm" group. If you're a member of this group your
default status is CONFIRMED no matter what. Bugzilla doesn't have an
I_SAID_UNCONFIRMED_BY_DEFAULT_DAMMIT option so I had to tweak the code a
bit.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe