Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Fedora::Bugzilla - $bug->blocks_bug() fail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
Summary: Fedora::Bugzilla - $bug->blocks_bug() fail Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: perl-Fedora-Bugzilla AssignedTo: cweyl@alumni.drew.edu ReportedBy: jpirko@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: cweyl@alumni.drew.edu, fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com, mmaslano@redhat.com Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Created an attachment (id=365567) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=365567) test script
Description of problem: When I try to get bugs that bz depends on, it fails in a way below and returns only one bz "0".
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.10-1 - I tried 0.13 from CPAN and problem is still there.
How reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce: run attached script
Actual results: blocks_bug Use of uninitialized value $_[1] in exists at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/MooseX/AttributeHelpers/MethodProvider/ImmutableHash.pm line 10. 0 all_blocked_bugs
Expected results: blocks_bug 499884 all_blocked_bugs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #1 from Jiri Pirko jpirko@redhat.com 2009-10-21 13:02:43 EDT --- Well all_blocked_bugs() returns bzs listed in "Blocks" field. This suggest following:
"Depends on" *eq* blocks_bug() "Blocks" *eq* all_blocked_bugs()
That doesn't sound good to me. Thoughts?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2009-10-22 01:44:42 EDT --- Yeah... Not good :)
I've updated the blocks/depends atts and added tests to validate it. I haven't pushed it to the CPAN as 0.14 yet as I have some additional work to square away with the alias bits, but it is out on github... As well as documentation to write :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #3 from Jiri Pirko jpirko@redhat.com 2009-10-22 02:56:35 EDT --- Hmm, Can you please provide me your testing pre-0.14 package for testing? Or do you plan to update cpan to 0.14 any time soon? My script is kinda stuck atm :(
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2009-10-22 10:55:10 EDT --- No problem:
http://github.com/RsrchBoy/fedora-bugzilla
I do plan on releasing 0.14 soon... I'm hoping later this week I should have a few tuits free to do just that.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #5 from Jiri Pirko jpirko@redhat.com 2009-10-22 11:28:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
No problem:
Just tried this and issue described in this bz still occurs :( - no change so far...
I do plan on releasing 0.14 soon... I'm hoping later this week I should have a few tuits free to do just that.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #6 from Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2009-10-22 15:46:13 EDT --- Hmm. Can you try running the tests in t/09.depends-blocks.t? They all pass for me, finding depends/blocks correctly.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #7 from Jiri Pirko jpirko@redhat.com 2009-10-22 17:50:12 EDT --- Well, it seems t/09.depends-blocks.t works fine:
ok 1 - The object isa Fedora::Bugzilla::Bug ok 2 - bug depends on other bugs ok 3 - bug depends on 3 other bugs ok 4 - bug depends on 476141 ok 5 - bug depends on 476143 ok 6 - bug depends on 476155 ok 7 - bug blocks other bugs ok 8 - bug blocks 2 other bugs ok 9 - bug blocks 478571 ok 10 - bug blocks 478572 1..10
I'll investigate this more tomorrow
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #8 from Jiri Pirko jpirko@redhat.com 2009-10-23 03:48:25 EDT --- Right, so I figured out what's wrong. In bztest3.pl script I'm using blocks_bug() in a wrong way.
To get a list of dependent bugs and blocks bugs I'm using successfully following:
print "all_dependent_bug_ids\n"; @dependent_bugs = $bug->all_dependent_bug_ids; foreach (@dependent_bugs){ print "$_\n"; }
print "all_blocked_bug_ids\n"; @blocked_bugs = $bug->all_blocked_bug_ids; foreach (@blocked_bugs){ print "$_\n"; }
I would suggest you to add test for these 2 to t/09.depends-blocks.t
Thanks.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
--- Comment #9 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com 2010-04-28 06:54:28 EDT ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 11 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 11. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '11'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 11's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 11 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530137
Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #10 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com 2010-06-28 11:04:48 EDT ---
Fedora 11 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-06-25. Fedora 11 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org