Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

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

Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Anthony Hughes-3
Hi everyone,

Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag, I'm wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass change in the back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag to the corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop bugs I want to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would be really noisy to devs.

Does anyone object?

Anthony Hughes
Senior Test Engineer
Mozilla Corporation


_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Matt Wobensmith
Is there any difference in work for you to just change the 86 Loop bugs, vs all bugs in Bugzilla?

Just asking. I dunno what the ramifications are to retroactively change all bugs to the flag vs existing whiteboard notes.

Thanks,


Matt Wobensmith
QA Engineer
Mozilla Corporation

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Hughes" <[hidden email]>
To: "dev-quality" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:32:28 PM
Subject: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Hi everyone,

Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag, I'm wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass change in the back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag to the corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop bugs I want to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would be really noisy to devs.

Does anyone object?

Anthony Hughes
Senior Test Engineer
Mozilla Corporation


_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Kevin Brosnan
In reply to this post by Anthony Hughes-3
You could file a bug to mass change the flags like http://bugzil.la/931171

Kevin
On Aug 28, 2014 1:33 PM, "Anthony Hughes" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag, I'm
> wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass change in the
> back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag to the
> corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop bugs I want
> to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would be really noisy to
> devs.
>
> Does anyone object?
>
> Anthony Hughes
> Senior Test Engineer
> Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Marc Schifer
Just remember to specify that it only applies to those components we have specified and not the rest of the bugs.

Marc S.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Brosnan" <[hidden email]>
To: "Anthony Hughes" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "dev-quality" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:52:33 PM
Subject: Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

You could file a bug to mass change the flags like http://bugzil.la/931171

Kevin
On Aug 28, 2014 1:33 PM, "Anthony Hughes" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag, I'm
> wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass change in the
> back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag to the
> corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop bugs I want
> to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would be really noisy to
> devs.
>
> Does anyone object?
>
> Anthony Hughes
> Senior Test Engineer
> Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Liz Henry
In reply to this post by Anthony Hughes-3
On 8/28/14 1:32 PM, Anthony Hughes wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag,
> I'm wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass
> change in the back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag
> to the corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop
> bugs I want to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would
> be really noisy to devs.
>
> Does anyone object?
>

I'd like this to happen for all our bugs with [qa] whiteboard tags so I
can stop having to construct queries that check for [qa] in two places
and qe-verify in a third. It is especially clumsy in the wiki charts I'm
using in the test plans so a mass change sounds great to me.

The problem is that we may not have turned on the qe-verify flag for all
the components that have [qa] whiteboard flags. But, maybe we can use
this mass change to also determine which components those are, and turn
on the flag for them.


- Liz



--
Liz Henry
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Robert Kaiser
In reply to this post by Anthony Hughes-3
Anthony Hughes schrieb:
> Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag, I'm wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass change in the back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag to the corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop bugs I want to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would be really noisy to devs.
>
> Does anyone object?

As nice as it would be for queries to have the flag instead of the
whiteboard tag everywhere, a traditional mass-change generates a ton of
bugmail and we surely do not want that.

KaiRo
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Ludovic Hirlimann-5
On 29/08/2014 17:28, Robert Kaiser wrote:

> Anthony Hughes schrieb:
>> Now that we've basically switched over to using the qe-verify flag,
>> I'm wondering if it would be okay for me to request doing a mass
>> change in the back-end to convert all bugs with a [qa] whiteboard tag
>> to the corresponding flag value. I personally have a query of 86 Loop
>> bugs I want to change and doing that by hand (while possible) would
>> be really noisy to devs.
>>
>> Does anyone object?
>
> As nice as it would be for queries to have the flag instead of the
> whiteboard tag everywhere, a traditional mass-change generates a ton
> of bugmail and we surely do not want that.
+1

--
http://sietch-tabr.tumblr.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/



_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality

signature.asc (220 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Liz Henry
In reply to this post by Robert Kaiser
On 8/29/14 8:28 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:

> As nice as it would be for queries to have the flag instead of the
> whiteboard tag everywhere, a traditional mass-change generates a ton of
> bugmail and we surely do not want that.
>

Exactly, that's why we're suggesting doing this through scripts that
won't generate bugmail.

- liz

--
Liz Henry
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Anthony Hughes-3
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at, ie. do something in the backend with scripts without generating bugmail. If this is possible, can we target it at those components which we know to be using qe-verify?

If not, that's fine -- I'll just end up changing it manually when I come across bugs in my day to day. However that means we'll be extending the time period we need to account for both methods of tagging in bug triage, dashboarding, and anywhere else we rely on these queries.

Anthony Hughes
Senior Test Engineer
Mozilla Corporation


----- Original Message -----

> From: "Liz Henry" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:59:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal
>
> On 8/29/14 8:28 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> > As nice as it would be for queries to have the flag instead of the
> > whiteboard tag everywhere, a traditional mass-change generates a ton of
> > bugmail and we surely do not want that.
> >
>
> Exactly, that's why we're suggesting doing this through scripts that
> won't generate bugmail.
>
> - liz
>
> --
> Liz Henry
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> dev-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Andre Klapper
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Anthony Hughes wrote:
> do something in the backend with scripts without generating bugmail.

Has it been considered to fix this properly (e.g. by implementing a "do
not create bugmail" checkbox for the "Change several bugs at once"
function when being e.g. member of the 'admin' group in Bugzilla)? Mass
changes don't sound like the most uncommon thing in an issue tracker.

andre
--
Andre Klapper | Bugmaster
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

David Burns-9
It has and I believe it is on the roadmap but don't know the exact
details. The sheriffs are after similar functionality for when they
close intermittent test failures that havent happened in a while.

David

On 02/09/2014 20:22, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Anthony Hughes wrote:
>> do something in the backend with scripts without generating bugmail.
> Has it been considered to fix this properly (e.g. by implementing a "do
> not create bugmail" checkbox for the "Change several bugs at once"
> function when being e.g. member of the 'admin' group in Bugzilla)? Mass
> changes don't sound like the most uncommon thing in an issue tracker.
>
> andre

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Liz Henry
In reply to this post by Andre Klapper
On 9/2/14 12:22 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Anthony Hughes wrote:
>> do something in the backend with scripts without generating bugmail.
>
> Has it been considered to fix this properly (e.g. by implementing a "do
> not create bugmail" checkbox for the "Change several bugs at once"
> function when being e.g. member of the 'admin' group in Bugzilla)? Mass
> changes don't sound like the most uncommon thing in an issue tracker.
>

That would be amazing!!  I would love to be able to do more mass changes
to add flags and so on, with less of the feeling that I'm about to annoy
dozens of people.


- Liz



--
Liz Henry
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Clint Talbert-3
In reply to this post by Anthony Hughes-3
Anthony,

I don't see anyone saying here that we shouldn't do the mass change if
we can do it without the bugmail.

I searched for a "mass change user service w/o bugmail" bug, and I
didn't find it. My read on that is that this is probably something that
is possible, but it's not something that is going to be enabled on
people's accounts who aren't administrators of BMO because when you do
this, you likely disable history tracking etc. CC'ing Glob about that.
Cheers,
Clint

On 9/2/2014 11:40, Anthony Hughes wrote:

> Yeah, that's what I'm getting at, ie. do something in the backend with scripts without generating bugmail. If this is possible, can we target it at those components which we know to be using qe-verify?
>
> If not, that's fine -- I'll just end up changing it manually when I come across bugs in my day to day. However that means we'll be extending the time period we need to account for both methods of tagging in bug triage, dashboarding, and anywhere else we rely on these queries.
>
> Anthony Hughes
> Senior Test Engineer
> Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Liz Henry" <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:59:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal
>>
>> On 8/29/14 8:28 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>
>>> As nice as it would be for queries to have the flag instead of the
>>> whiteboard tag everywhere, a traditional mass-change generates a ton of
>>> bugmail and we surely do not want that.
>>>
>> Exactly, that's why we're suggesting doing this through scripts that
>> won't generate bugmail.
>>
>> - liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Henry
>> [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Syd Polk
At a previous job, the only way we found to do it was to take BZ down, and then run direct MySql SQL queries, then bring BZ back up.

Syd Polk

On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Clint Talbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony,
>
> I don't see anyone saying here that we shouldn't do the mass change if we can do it without the bugmail.
>
> I searched for a "mass change user service w/o bugmail" bug, and I didn't find it. My read on that is that this is probably something that is possible, but it's not something that is going to be enabled on people's accounts who aren't administrators of BMO because when you do this, you likely disable history tracking etc. CC'ing Glob about that.
> Cheers,
> Clint
>
> On 9/2/2014 11:40, Anthony Hughes wrote:
>> Yeah, that's what I'm getting at, ie. do something in the backend with scripts without generating bugmail. If this is possible, can we target it at those components which we know to be using qe-verify?
>>
>> If not, that's fine -- I'll just end up changing it manually when I come across bugs in my day to day. However that means we'll be extending the time period we need to account for both methods of tagging in bug triage, dashboarding, and anywhere else we rely on these queries.
>>
>> Anthony Hughes
>> Senior Test Engineer
>> Mozilla Corporation
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Liz Henry" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:59:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal
>>>
>>> On 8/29/14 8:28 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>>
>>>> As nice as it would be for queries to have the flag instead of the
>>>> whiteboard tag everywhere, a traditional mass-change generates a ton of
>>>> bugmail and we surely do not want that.
>>>>
>>> Exactly, that's why we're suggesting doing this through scripts that
>>> won't generate bugmail.
>>>
>>> - liz
>>>
>>> --
>>> Liz Henry
>>> [hidden email]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Byron Jones-5
In reply to this post by Clint Talbert-3
Clint Talbert wrote:
> I don't see anyone saying here that we shouldn't do the mass change if
> we can do it without the bugmail.
>
> I searched for a "mass change user service w/o bugmail" bug, and I
> didn't find it. My read on that is that this is probably something
> that is possible, but it's not something that is going to be enabled
> on people's accounts who aren't administrators of BMO because when you
> do this, you likely disable history tracking etc. CC'ing Glob about that.
no, it isn't currently possible, due to an old bugzilla policy of "the
bug changer shouldn't decide if a recipient should receive
notifications".  there are quite a few bugs about this, most will be
either WONTFIXd or DUPEs.

in our last upstream bugzilla meeting i proposed changing this policy,
and mirroring wikimedia's "minor update, no email" checkbox.  after some
discussion we agreed this would be worth doing.  i'm currently sketching
up a rough plan (it's more complicated that you probably think) and will
file a new bug soon to track this.

> Exactly, that's why we're suggesting doing this through scripts that
> won't generate bugmail.
scripts for updating bugs in mass should be reserved for very infrequent
uses.  i don't have the full context of this discussion, but if you're
proposing using scripts as part of your normal processes, i will be
pushing back against that.

i have lesser issues with their use for a mass single-shot migration,
but i've pretty keen to phase them out in general.  some of them can be
a bit tricky because we have to manually insert history rows, touch
memcached, etc.  because they are part of the codebase the turn-around
can be up to a week, and we require someone from IT to execute them.  
these are some of the reasons why i raised the issue of changing
upstream bugzilla's policy :)


-glob

--
byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Anthony Hughes-3
Thanks for getting back to us Byron.

This thread has kind of derailed a bit into a meta discussion about mass bugzilla changes. The proposal to make a "minor update, no email" checkbox is a good idea which I fully support but it's not what I'm trying to accomplish in *this* thread.

There's a large group of bugs with a [qa+/-/?/!] tag in either the Whiteboard or QA Whiteboard fields. A subset of these bugs are in bugzilla Products which now support the qe-verify flag. All I want is to replace the whiteboard tags with the appropriate flag values without generating a lot of bugmail.

Here's how the tags map:
 * [qa-] tag => qe-verify- flag
 * [qa+] tag => qe-verify+ flag
 * [qa?] tag => qe-verify? flag
 * [qa!] tag => qe-verify+ flag

Is this doable?

Thanks again,

Anthony Hughes
Senior Test Engineer
Mozilla Corporation


----- Original Message -----

> From: "Byron Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Clint Talbert" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 12:11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal
>
> Clint Talbert wrote:
> > I don't see anyone saying here that we shouldn't do the mass change if
> > we can do it without the bugmail.
> >
> > I searched for a "mass change user service w/o bugmail" bug, and I
> > didn't find it. My read on that is that this is probably something
> > that is possible, but it's not something that is going to be enabled
> > on people's accounts who aren't administrators of BMO because when you
> > do this, you likely disable history tracking etc. CC'ing Glob about that.
> no, it isn't currently possible, due to an old bugzilla policy of "the
> bug changer shouldn't decide if a recipient should receive
> notifications".  there are quite a few bugs about this, most will be
> either WONTFIXd or DUPEs.
>
> in our last upstream bugzilla meeting i proposed changing this policy,
> and mirroring wikimedia's "minor update, no email" checkbox.  after some
> discussion we agreed this would be worth doing.  i'm currently sketching
> up a rough plan (it's more complicated that you probably think) and will
> file a new bug soon to track this.
>
> > Exactly, that's why we're suggesting doing this through scripts that
> > won't generate bugmail.
> scripts for updating bugs in mass should be reserved for very infrequent
> uses.  i don't have the full context of this discussion, but if you're
> proposing using scripts as part of your normal processes, i will be
> pushing back against that.
>
> i have lesser issues with their use for a mass single-shot migration,
> but i've pretty keen to phase them out in general.  some of them can be
> a bit tricky because we have to manually insert history rows, touch
> memcached, etc.  because they are part of the codebase the turn-around
> can be up to a week, and we require someone from IT to execute them.
> these are some of the reasons why i raised the issue of changing
> upstream bugzilla's policy :)
>
>
> -glob
>
> --
> byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Byron Jones-5
Anthony Hughes wrote:
> There's a large group of bugs with a [qa+/-/?/!] tag in either the Whiteboard or QA Whiteboard fields. A subset of these bugs are in bugzilla Products which now support the qe-verify flag. All I want is to replace the whiteboard tags with the appropriate flag values without generating a lot of bugmail.
>
> Here's how the tags map:
>   * [qa-] tag =>  qe-verify- flag
>   * [qa+] tag =>  qe-verify+ flag
>   * [qa?] tag =>  qe-verify? flag
>   * [qa!] tag =>  qe-verify+ flag
>
> Is this doable?
yes; for single-shot migration a script would work fine.

file a bug :)

--
byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal

Anthony Hughes-3
Thank you, Bryon.

I have filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1064431

Anthony Hughes
Senior Test Engineer
Mozilla Corporation


----- Original Message -----

> From: "Byron Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Anthony Hughes" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "Clint Talbert" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2014 8:31:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Mass Bugzilla Change Proposal
>
> Anthony Hughes wrote:
> > There's a large group of bugs with a [qa+/-/?/!] tag in either the
> > Whiteboard or QA Whiteboard fields. A subset of these bugs are in bugzilla
> > Products which now support the qe-verify flag. All I want is to replace
> > the whiteboard tags with the appropriate flag values without generating a
> > lot of bugmail.
> >
> > Here's how the tags map:
> >   * [qa-] tag =>  qe-verify- flag
> >   * [qa+] tag =>  qe-verify+ flag
> >   * [qa?] tag =>  qe-verify? flag
> >   * [qa!] tag =>  qe-verify+ flag
> >
> > Is this doable?
> yes; for single-shot migration a script would work fine.
>
> file a bug :)
>
> --
> byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality