Custom fields administrative interface...
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Jun 11 07:14:49 UTC 2003
Sean McAfee wrote:
> ...is attached. Untar it in Bugzilla's root directory to try it out.
I haven't had (and may not have for a while) time to evaluate this
particularly closely. Keeping up with all of this is a time-sink - and
other Bugzilla hackers have noticed that, which is why your proposal has
not yet had any substantive comments from them. But, having looked at
the schema, it does seem that you have decided not to make the changes I
suggested in our last conversation.
That's your prerogative, of course, but in my view, the structure of
this CF implementation is too far off base to get checked into Bugzilla
as-is. There's good stuff about it, but (just looking in the schema) two
issues in particular leap out.
It seems pretty clear that Bugzilla needs only one bug activity tracking
mechanism. So, for your patch to get in to Bugzilla, you either need to
provide one which replaces the current one (together with migrating
code) or you need to use the current one, enhancing it as necessary.
Secondly, the groups mechanism you are using is, in my view, unecessary,
over-complicates things and would be confusing to users. The problem
it's designed to be solved can be solved much more simply by a per-field
multiselect of products, and a per-product multiselect of fields (on
different pages, naturally), so admins can attack the mapping problem
from both sides. (There would also be a per-group checkbox "add this
field to new products", and a per-product checkbox, "add this product to
new custom fields".)
> * No stock Bugzilla tables are written to. Only two, "bugs" and
> "products", are read from.
This is a bug, not a feature. :-)
> * The code does not yet support multiple locales. If we all ultimately
> agree that custom field display names belong in the database, as I aver,
> then all that is needed is a few extra joins to a new table--cf_text,
> perhaps. Otherwise, more work is needed...
This discussion needs to continue - but I continue to assert that my
precepts stated previously remain non-negotiable. I do think there's a
way for us both to get what we want, though.
More information about the developers