Bug XML output questions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug XML output questions

Gervase Markham
I know Bugzilla's XML output has evolved over time; I'm not holding
anyone here responsible for its shortcomings :-)

Which of these are bugs, which are things we'd have loved to fix but
it's too late now, and which are intended?

* cclist_accessible and reporter_accessible are not in the XML at all if
their value is 0.

* keywords is a comma-separated list, unlike other multi-valued fields,
which get one tag pair per value.

* It doesn't tell you if custom fields are single-valued, or are
multiple-valued fields which happen to just contain a single value. You
have to call the legal_values API for each field.

* There's no way of finding out what possible flags can be set, only the
ones which are set.

* Same as the question above, but for groups. (Can legal_values help in
either of these cases?)

Thanks for any light anyone can shed :-)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla
-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug XML output questions

Joel Peshkin

Wouldn't it help a lot if the interface also permitted retrieving an XSD
output?  The XSD could be generated with an awareness of flag types,
custom fields, etc.   Since the XSD itself is an xml format, it could
either be treated by the client as an xsd or, more likely, parsed as an
xml document that answers many of the questions Gerv points out.

>
> * It doesn't tell you if custom fields are single-valued, or are
multiple-valued fields which happen to just contain a single value. You
have to call the legal_values API for each field.
>
> * There's no way of finding out what possible flags can be set, only the
ones which are set.
>
> * Same as the question above, but for groups. (Can legal_values help in
either of these cases?)
>





-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug XML output questions

Max Kanat-Alexander
On 09/16/2009 10:37 AM, Joel Peshkin wrote:
> Wouldn't it help a lot if the interface also permitted retrieving an XSD
> output?  The XSD could be generated with an awareness of flag types,
> custom fields, etc.   Since the XSD itself is an xml format, it could
> either be treated by the client as an xsd or, more likely, parsed as an
> xml document that answers many of the questions Gerv points out.

        The XML interface (which never really had an interface specification)
is essentially deprecated in favor of the XML-RPC interface (where we
guarantee stability), so I'm not sure we want to add too many new
features to it.

        -Max
--
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug XML output questions

Max Kanat-Alexander
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On 09/16/2009 09:21 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> * cclist_accessible and reporter_accessible are not in the XML at all if
> their value is 0.

        That sounds like a bug to me.

> * keywords is a comma-separated list, unlike other multi-valued fields,
> which get one tag pair per value.

        This is certainly a deficiency, but I suspect we'd be breaking stuff if
we changed it now. Keywords guarantee that they won't themselves contain
commas, so this is still parseable.

> * It doesn't tell you if custom fields are single-valued, or are
> multiple-valued fields which happen to just contain a single value. You
> have to call the legal_values API for each field.

        config.cgi's RDF format should tell you the type of each field, I believe.

> * There's no way of finding out what possible flags can be set, only the
> ones which are set.

        config.cgi should give you this information.

        You might want to look at the implementation of Mylyn, if you can read
Java, since it handles all these things.

> * Same as the question above, but for groups. (Can legal_values help in
> either of these cases?)

        That one might be trickier, since we usually consider group names to be
themselves confidential unless you are an admin or a member of the
group. The data *might* be in config.cgi.

        -Max
--
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug XML output questions

Gervase Markham
In reply to this post by Joel Peshkin
On 17/09/09 01:37, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
> The XML interface (which never really had an interface specification)
> is essentially deprecated in favor of the XML-RPC interface (where we
> guarantee stability), so I'm not sure we want to add too many new
> features to it.

The XML-RPC interface produces different (and better) XML to the XML
interface? Cool! <Gerv goes off to try this out>

Gerv

_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla
-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug XML output questions

Gregary Hendricks
In reply to this post by Max Kanat-Alexander
>>> On 9/16/2009 at 06:37 PM, in message <[hidden email]>, Max
Kanat-Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 09/16/2009 10:37 AM, Joel Peshkin wrote:
> > Wouldn't it help a lot if the interface also permitted retrieving an XSD
> > output?  The XSD could be generated with an awareness of flag types,
> > custom fields, etc.   Since the XSD itself is an xml format, it could
> > either be treated by the client as an xsd or, more likely, parsed as an
> > xml document that answers many of the questions Gerv points out.
>  
> The XML interface (which never really had an interface specification)
> is essentially deprecated in favor of the XML-RPC interface (where we
> guarantee stability), so I'm not sure we want to add too many new
> features to it.

Actually, I think there is still value in having an XML specification, and I have intended to submit an XSD to that effect soon. The XML-RPC is still too limited to allow mass update or import of bugs, and I think having an XML representation can be useful in other ways as well.

Greg

-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug XML output questions

Max Kanat-Alexander
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On 09/17/2009 02:19 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The XML-RPC interface produces different (and better) XML to the XML
> interface? Cool! <Gerv goes off to try this out>

        It certainly produces more consistent output. However, it's not as
complete yet. You're welcome to file bugs for additional information
you'd like to see out of it, and we definitely plan to expand it as time
goes on.

        -Max
--
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists@...>