Blocker Bug Tracking Draft Page

[Tim Flink]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 04:15:45 -0400 (EDT)
Kamil Paral <kparal at redhat.com> wrote:

> > There is a limit to what I can realistically do with static html +
> > js but I can think of two ways to do that off hand. I'll see what I
> > can come up with that's realistic.
> 
> The generator script can pickle information <bug number, time added>
> and then create rows with new/recent bugs with a specific css class.
> That way it's a static content, but the generator script have to
> store information somewhere.

True but I'm not sure that's a great solution (the caching of existing
bugs part, the css is exactly what I was planning). If I'm understanding
you correctly, that would mark every blocker as "new" if the script was
run for the first time.

My other concern is script runtime if the bugzilla queries gets any more
complicated. Currently, the script takes ~ 20 minutes to run - almost
all of that is waiting for python-bugzilla calls. There aren't that
many bugzilla calls, they're just that slow.

> > 
> > > Also, can you put MODIFIED and ON_QA states in bold?
> > 
> > Yeah, that would be easy. I'm wondering if there would be value in
> > doing more color coding and/or status highlighting than that, though
> > 
> > Now that you mention it, I wonder if there would be value in having
> > a related page with a list of blockers/nth that need testing (based
> > on status - whatever is ON_QA). I like the idea and the code would
> > be straightforward but I'm not sure if the bug statuses correlate
> > enough with what actually needs testing for that list to make sense.
> 
> That list would be the same as the list of bold items, right? We can
> just put some information "Bold items need testing" onto the page and
> we don't need to create a separate one. Or do you intend to put
> something else in the new page?

No, I hadn't been planning to put anything else in the new page - just
thinking that it might be convenient to have in a separate list, "if
you're looking for something to test, visit this link".

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20120703/1c43cb2f/attachment.sig>