Re: Ping-Bug?

[Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org>]

On 8/1/14 4:06 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org
> <mailto:gerald () wireshark org>> wrote:
>
>     On 8/1/14 3:58 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>     > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org
>     <mailto:gerald () wireshark org>
>     > <mailto:gerald () wireshark org <mailto:gerald () wireshark org>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On 8/1/14 9:08 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
>     >     > On 07/13/14 14:05, Alexis La Goutte wrote:
>     >     >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Evan Huus
>     <eapache () gmail com <mailto:eapache () gmail com>
>     >     <mailto:eapache () gmail com <mailto:eapache () gmail com>>> wrote:
>     >     >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Gerald Combs
>     >     <gerald () wireshark org <mailto:gerald () wireshark org>
>     <mailto:gerald () wireshark org <mailto:gerald () wireshark org>>>
>     >     >>> wrote:
>     >     >>>>
>     >     >>>> On 7/7/14 9:10 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>     >     >>>>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Alexis La Goutte
>     >     >>>>> <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com
>     <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com> <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com
>     <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>>
>     >     <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com
>     <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>
>     >     <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com
>     <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>>>> wrote:
>     >     >>>>>
>     >     >>>>>      On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Evan Huus
>     >     <eapache () gmail com <mailto:eapache () gmail com>
>     <mailto:eapache () gmail com <mailto:eapache () gmail com>>
>     >     >>>>
>     >     >>>>
>     >     >>>>>      > It would be nice to have different tags for
>     Refs-Bug and
>     >     >>>>>      Fixes-Bug, and have
>     >     >>>>>      > the bugzilla integration do The Right Thing for
>     changes
>     >     that
>     >     >>>>> refer
>     >     >>>>>      to but do
>     >     >>>>>      > not fix a bug. Gerald, how easy is this? I believe
>     >     OpenStack
>     >     >>>>> has a
>     >     >>>>>      set of
>     >     >>>>>      > tags they use which we might look to for inspiration?
>     >     >>>>>      +1
>     >     >>>>>      I like OpenStack tags :
>     >     >>>>>
>     >     >>>>>      Closes-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Closes-Bug' if the
>     commit is
>     >     >>>>> intended
>     >     >>>>> to
>     >     >>>>>      fully fix and close the bug being referenced.
>     >     >>>>>      Partial-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Partial-Bug' if the
>     commit is
>     >     >>>>> only a
>     >     >>>>>      partial fix and more work is needed.
>     >     >>>>>      Related-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Related-Bug' if the
>     commit is
>     >     >>>>> merely
>     >     >>>>>      related to the referenced bug.
>     >     >>>>>
>     >     >>>>>
>     >     >>>>>
>     >     >>>>>
>     >    
>     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external_references
>     >     >>>>>
>     >     >>>>
>     >     >>>> How would Partial-Bug and Related-Bug differ for our
>     purposes?
>     >     Wouldn't
>     >     >>>> they do the same thing (i.e. add a comment to the bug)? Could
>     >     we get
>     >     >>>> away with two tags:
>     >     >>>>
>     >     >>>> Ping-Bug: 12345 -- Add a comment to bug 12345
>     >     >>>> Bug (or Closes-Bug): 12345 -- Add a comment and mark it
>     >     RESOLVED FIXED.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> Just "Ping-Bug" and "Bug" works for me.
>     >     >> +1
>     >     >> (or Comment-Bug and Closes-Bug ?)
>     >     >
>     >     > So what are the current set of tags for this?  I tried using
>     Ping-Bug
>     >     > (on change 3314) and it ended up closing the bug on me...
>     >
>     >     Until a few minutes ago any time "bug" followed by a number
>     appeared in
>     >     the commit message Gerrit would add a comment and close it.
>     The specific
>     >     JavaScript RE was "\b[Bb]ug:?\s*#?(\d+)\b".
>     >
>     >     As of now Gerrit should update Bugzilla only for the following
>     footers.
>     >     The RE is now "\b(?:[Pp]ing-)?[Bb]ug:?\s*#?(\d+)\b":
>     >
>     >     Ping-Bug: 12345 -- Only add a comment.
>     >     Bug: 12345 -- Add a comment to the bug and close it.
>     >
>     >
>     > Awesome, thanks!
>     >
>     > Just wondering, in hindsight, if we should reverse it so "Closes-Bug"
>     > closes and "Bug" just posts a comment. Otherwise I I'm sure somebody
>     > will do "blah blah blah like in bug ####" in a commit message and
>     > accidentally close that bug.
>
>     The current actions should be limited to footers, so we should be safe
>     from "bug ####" elsewhere in the commit message.
>
>
> The current RE are bounded by \b which is just a word boundary. Is it
> safe because the RE are only run against the footers in the first place
> (Gerrit does that for us?) or did you mean to bound them with ^ and $
> (which might be safer anyways).

I tried ^ in the RE but it didn't work. Apparently the "multiline"
option isn't enabled in commentlinks and I didn't see a way to enable
it. Footers are enforced elsewhere.
___________________________________________________________________________
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