From justdave at bugzilla.org  Sat Jan  2 04:41:37 2016
From: justdave at bugzilla.org (Dave Miller)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:41:37 -0500
Subject: Project leadership changes
Message-ID: <56875501.8080802@bugzilla.org>

My apologies for being so late to get this written up, I've been loafing
around at home enjoying the holiday with my family. :-)

At the Bugzilla Project Meeting that was held on December 23rd, I
announced some leadership changes for the project.

Byron "glob" Jones had announced at the previous meeting that he was
resigning from his assistant project leader role because of a change in
focus that didn't leave him adequate time to deal with it anymore.  In
the intervening month since then, Mark C?t? had also approached me about
it being difficult to keep Mozilla's Bugzilla separate from the upstream
project since they had different goals. This left both of the assistant
project leader positions open.

Dylan Hardison and Gervase Markham have both agreed to step into those
roles, and have already been taking over those duties.

Byron and Mark are still around and working on Bugzilla, so we're not
completely losing them. :-)  I do want to thank both of them for all the
work they've done over the last several months.

Dylan is currently working on organizing the biggest wishlist items from
several of the bigger Bugzilla installations with the goal of getting us
a project roadmap going again.  Hopefully we'll be discussing that
shortly on this list.

So anyway, please join me in congratulating Dylan and Gerv on their new
positions, and please give them whatever help they need to keep making
Bugzilla great!

-- 
Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/
IT Infrastructure Engineer, Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/
Project Leader, Bugzilla Bug Tracking System http://www.bugzilla.org/



From gerv at mozilla.org  Sat Jan  2 15:22:13 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 15:22:13 +0000
Subject: Skins
In-Reply-To: <mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
References: <CANx7wf=oUhcUOFrWb2QvX9pf7Uu8bVu-VR=vzOsi1Tt+Hf=MLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<568273EA.9090108@mozilla.org> <5682812F.6060302@gmail.com>
	<56828BFF.3060107@mozilla.org>
	<mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org>

On 29/12/15 14:20, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote:
> move towards Dusk. So my proposal would be: replace Classic by
> Standstone, and make it the new default skin for Bugzilla 6.0 (if done
> on time for 6.0, of course). This way 1) skins/standard/ would really be
> the place for the default skin, which makes sense, and 2) we could still
> offer an alternative to users, aka Dusk (but we would need to see how
> the final Standstone implementation would look like to know what to
> change in Dusk), and 3) we don't need to support an extra 3rd skin.

That sounds good... however, all custom skins, which will have been
"based on" Classic, will need to be rewritten to be based on Sandstone.
We'll need to warn people.

Still, I can see the merit of this plan.

Gerv


_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla

From theycallmefish at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 15:41:11 2016
From: theycallmefish at gmail.com (Ryan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:41:11 +0000
Subject: Skins
In-Reply-To: <_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
References: <CANx7wf=oUhcUOFrWb2QvX9pf7Uu8bVu-VR=vzOsi1Tt+Hf=MLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <568273EA.9090108@mozilla.org> <5682812F.6060302@gmail.com>
 <56828BFF.3060107@mozilla.org> <mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
 <_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <CACS7coKPnqOSNopsn97274N+oW8FYxsocjmAd=YLLWyMpCufLg@mail.gmail.com>

Since I've already been through a lot of the work on Sandstone, I'm willing
to put in the time for the new standard skins.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, 8:25 AM Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 29/12/15 14:20, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote:
> > move towards Dusk. So my proposal would be: replace Classic by
> > Standstone, and make it the new default skin for Bugzilla 6.0 (if done
> > on time for 6.0, of course). This way 1) skins/standard/ would really be
> > the place for the default skin, which makes sense, and 2) we could still
> > offer an alternative to users, aka Dusk (but we would need to see how
> > the final Standstone implementation would look like to know what to
> > change in Dusk), and 3) we don't need to support an extra 3rd skin.
>
> That sounds good... however, all custom skins, which will have been
> "based on" Classic, will need to be rewritten to be based on Sandstone.
> We'll need to warn people.
>
> Still, I can see the merit of this plan.
>
> Gerv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
> dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
> 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=$MSGRCPT>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160102/f40db8e3/attachment.html>

From capitocapito at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 21:42:12 2016
From: capitocapito at gmail.com (David Capito)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:42:12 +0000
Subject: Self Introduction: David Capito
Message-ID: <CA+KrRWnQnBgikAOWc9EpHeqtRA5=65SbGkuXFLia9GGbnZr1pw@mail.gmail.com>

   - Full legal name (as you use it is fine): *David Capito*
   - Your IRC nick on irc.mozilla.org (if you have one): *I've briefly used
   "capito" but haven't registered it.*
   - City, Country; you may use your timezone if you have a compelling
   reason not to specify your city or country: *Seattle, WA*
   - Profession or Student status (optional): *UX Designer/Developer*
   - What do you want to help out with? *At our design/dev agency, we've
   had a couple of cases where we've wanted to quickly change the terms used
   by Bugzilla, such as "bugs" "components" and "products". The template has
   the option for the first one... I'd like to start off by helping modify the
   templates to use terms tags for the other terms as well, providing options
   for others in the same situation.*
   - Historical qualifications
      - What other technical projects have you worked on in the past? *I've
      worked on Wordpress templates and CodeIgniter sites for various agency
      clients.*
      - What level and type of computer skills do you have? *Mostly
      front-end dev skills and ux designer skills. I consider myself a designer
      first.*
      - What other skills do you have that might be applicable? User
      interface design, other so-called soft skills (people skills), etc. *UX
      design, prototyping, bad jokes.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160112/5b0468fb/attachment.html>

From lpsolit at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 22:14:03 2016
From: lpsolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:14:03 +0100
Subject: Self Introduction: David Capito
In-Reply-To: <CA+KrRWnQnBgikAOWc9EpHeqtRA5=65SbGkuXFLia9GGbnZr1pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+KrRWnQnBgikAOWc9EpHeqtRA5=65SbGkuXFLia9GGbnZr1pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56957AAB.6020909@gmail.com>

Le 12. 01. 16 22:42, David Capito a ?crit :
>    - What do you want to help out with? *At our design/dev agency, we've
>    had a couple of cases where we've wanted to quickly change the terms used
>    by Bugzilla, such as "bugs" "components" and "products". The template has
>    the option for the first one... I'd like to start off by helping modify the
>    templates to use terms tags for the other terms as well, providing options
>    for others in the same situation.*

Hi,

This work has already been done, see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297616 but it has been
decided to not take it due to the added complexity. I suggest you simply
take the patch in this bug and see if it still applies cleanly to your
installation.


LpSolit



From dylan at mozilla.com  Tue Jan 12 22:29:15 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:29:15 -0500
Subject: Self Introduction: David Capito
In-Reply-To: <56957AAB.6020909@gmail.com>
References: <CA+KrRWnQnBgikAOWc9EpHeqtRA5=65SbGkuXFLia9GGbnZr1pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56957AAB.6020909@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANx7wfmpx97+QA9BOa5m86k0yX6c60jNRUjhVQ1Zsnn0OMQJYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Although, if we do proper l10n (using Locale::Maketext), this would
just be a custom localization, en_Capito for instance. The amount to
get there is quite big though.


On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Fr?d?ric Buclin <lpsolit at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 12. 01. 16 22:42, David Capito a ?crit :
>>    - What do you want to help out with? *At our design/dev agency, we've
>>    had a couple of cases where we've wanted to quickly change the terms used
>>    by Bugzilla, such as "bugs" "components" and "products". The template has
>>    the option for the first one... I'd like to start off by helping modify the
>>    templates to use terms tags for the other terms as well, providing options
>>    for others in the same situation.*
>
> Hi,
>
> This work has already been done, see
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297616 but it has been
> decided to not take it due to the added complexity. I suggest you simply
> take the patch in this bug and see if it still applies cleanly to your
> installation.
>
>
> LpSolit
>
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=dylan at mozilla.com>


From gerv at mozilla.org  Wed Jan 13 09:59:59 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:59:59 +0000
Subject: Self Introduction: David Capito
In-Reply-To: <CA+KrRWnQnBgikAOWc9EpHeqtRA5=65SbGkuXFLia9GGbnZr1pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+KrRWnQnBgikAOWc9EpHeqtRA5=65SbGkuXFLia9GGbnZr1pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5696201F.1050008@mozilla.org>

Hi David,

Welcome :-) Thanks for letting us know you are around. It may be that
the particular thing you were thinking of doing is already done, but we
would love to have you help with Bugzilla's UX!

Gerv


From dylan at mozilla.com  Tue Jan 19 17:33:27 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:33:27 -0500
Subject: Call to Benchmark PSGI!
Message-ID: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>

I think PSGI is *ridiculously* faster than mod_perl


Given a simple benchmark of calling apache bench against show_bug?id=1
(with a simple testing db, mind you) I get 12 requests a second under PSGI
(using HTTP::Server::PSGI) and 4 requests/second with mod_perl

So mod_perl is about twice as fast CGI, but PSGI is three times faster
than mod_perl.

https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03d

So a call to people out there that have a working mod_perl setup ---
please benchmark
master on both mod_perl and PSGI and post the results here!

Regards,

Dylan.


From dylan at mozilla.com  Tue Jan 19 17:53:55 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:53:55 -0500
Subject: Call to Benchmark PSGI!
In-Reply-To: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANx7wfknU7tOMntsb2CUGYrqS0=GBAUbDmmgM7VJQP9xsxeShw@mail.gmail.com>

And under Gazelle or Starlet, it's more like 42 requests per second.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Dylan Hardison <dylan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> I think PSGI is *ridiculously* faster than mod_perl
>
>
> Given a simple benchmark of calling apache bench against show_bug?id=1
> (with a simple testing db, mind you) I get 12 requests a second under PSGI
> (using HTTP::Server::PSGI) and 4 requests/second with mod_perl
>
> So mod_perl is about twice as fast CGI, but PSGI is three times faster
> than mod_perl.
>
> https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03d
>
> So a call to people out there that have a working mod_perl setup ---
> please benchmark
> master on both mod_perl and PSGI and post the results here!
>
> Regards,
>
> Dylan.


From dylan at mozilla.com  Tue Jan 19 22:48:20 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:48:20 -0500
Subject: Call to Benchmark PSGI!
In-Reply-To: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANx7wf=NB35_5xvG4nKuyeFB1NVhFEF0f+q44Epq4M4_8EOt-A@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the proper link: https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Dylan Hardison <dylan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> I think PSGI is *ridiculously* faster than mod_perl
>
>
> Given a simple benchmark of calling apache bench against show_bug?id=1
> (with a simple testing db, mind you) I get 12 requests a second under PSGI
> (using HTTP::Server::PSGI) and 4 requests/second with mod_perl
>
> So mod_perl is about twice as fast CGI, but PSGI is three times faster
> than mod_perl.
>
> https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03d
>
> So a call to people out there that have a working mod_perl setup ---
> please benchmark
> master on both mod_perl and PSGI and post the results here!
>
> Regards,
>
> Dylan.


From dylan at mozilla.com  Wed Jan 20 05:17:10 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:17:10 -0500
Subject: Call to Benchmark PSGI!
In-Reply-To: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANx7wf=33Qu+kRKuSGZwdn6OFJuHDCnd1Z39KXT=EVtia-QyMA@mail.gmail.com>

I knew these numbers were too good to be true -- it turns out the
stock mod_perl config has such a low Apache::SizeLimit that the
process gets killed after a few requests. I've re-opened
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731589 and the new
default will be a more more reasonable 250_000.

I'm still keen on benchmarks, and I'll post my revised ones shortly. I
recommend editing mod_perl.pl and setting the size limit to 250_000 or
750_000,
or wait for Bug 731589 to land.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Dylan Hardison <dylan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> I think PSGI is *ridiculously* faster than mod_perl
>
>
> Given a simple benchmark of calling apache bench against show_bug?id=1
> (with a simple testing db, mind you) I get 12 requests a second under PSGI
> (using HTTP::Server::PSGI) and 4 requests/second with mod_perl
>
> So mod_perl is about twice as fast CGI, but PSGI is three times faster
> than mod_perl.
>
> https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03d
>
> So a call to people out there that have a working mod_perl setup ---
> please benchmark
> master on both mod_perl and PSGI and post the results here!
>
> Regards,
>
> Dylan.


From denis.roy at eclipse.org  Wed Jan 20 13:33:28 2016
From: denis.roy at eclipse.org (Denis Roy)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:33:28 -0500
Subject: Call to Benchmark PSGI!
In-Reply-To: <CANx7wf=33Qu+kRKuSGZwdn6OFJuHDCnd1Z39KXT=EVtia-QyMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com> <CANx7wf=33Qu+kRKuSGZwdn6OFJuHDCnd1Z39KXT=EVtia-QyMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <569F8CA8.7090103@eclipse.org>

We've been using 300_000 as the magic number for years now, and I find
bz performance to be quite acceptable. We do have three web heads though.

I can't wait to see your benchmark against psgi.

Denis



On 01/20/2016 12:17 AM, Dylan Hardison wrote:
> I knew these numbers were too good to be true -- it turns out the
> stock mod_perl config has such a low Apache::SizeLimit that the
> process gets killed after a few requests. I've re-opened
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731589 and the new
> default will be a more more reasonable 250_000.
> 
> I'm still keen on benchmarks, and I'll post my revised ones shortly. I
> recommend editing mod_perl.pl and setting the size limit to 250_000 or
> 750_000,
> or wait for Bug 731589 to land.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Dylan Hardison <dylan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I think PSGI is *ridiculously* faster than mod_perl
>>
>>
>> Given a simple benchmark of calling apache bench against show_bug?id=1
>> (with a simple testing db, mind you) I get 12 requests a second under PSGI
>> (using HTTP::Server::PSGI) and 4 requests/second with mod_perl
>>
>> So mod_perl is about twice as fast CGI, but PSGI is three times faster
>> than mod_perl.
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03d
>>
>> So a call to people out there that have a working mod_perl setup ---
>> please benchmark
>> master on both mod_perl and PSGI and post the results here!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dylan.
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=denis.roy at eclipse.org>
> 


From dylan at mozilla.com  Wed Jan 20 16:01:02 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:01:02 -0500
Subject: Call to Benchmark PSGI!
In-Reply-To: <569F8CA8.7090103@eclipse.org>
References: <CANx7wfkeLSDrap7gKcgG+0kdTR=K=GqaZ+OaN5PxubRXV5zRPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANx7wf=33Qu+kRKuSGZwdn6OFJuHDCnd1Z39KXT=EVtia-QyMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<569F8CA8.7090103@eclipse.org>
Message-ID: <CANx7wfk9=ZZCLX6c4LCHpmSv2_aQYj382AqnQb9uS7_OHSuiPw@mail.gmail.com>

Given multiple runs, it seems that Gazelle is only a little faster
then a correctly-configured mod_perl. Nothing to make headlines over.
PSGI still brings plenty of advantages, like not requiring apache and
more pleasant dev environment.

apache mod_perl, size limit = 750_000, 10 workers:

Concurrency Level:      8
Time taken for tests:   110.009 seconds
Complete requests:      4000
Failed requests:        0
Total transferred:      114804000 bytes
HTML transferred:       113272000 bytes
Requests per second:    36.36 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       220.018 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       27.502 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          1019.13 [Kbytes/sec] received

Gazelle, max-workers: 10:

Concurrency Level:      8
Time taken for tests:   95.263 seconds
Complete requests:      4000
Failed requests:        0
Total transferred:      114440000 bytes
HTML transferred:       113140000 bytes
Requests per second:    41.99 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       190.526 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       23.816 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          1173.15 [Kbytes/sec] received

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Denis Roy <denis.roy at eclipse.org> wrote:
> We've been using 300_000 as the magic number for years now, and I find
> bz performance to be quite acceptable. We do have three web heads though.
>
> I can't wait to see your benchmark against psgi.
>
> Denis
>
>
>
> On 01/20/2016 12:17 AM, Dylan Hardison wrote:
>> I knew these numbers were too good to be true -- it turns out the
>> stock mod_perl config has such a low Apache::SizeLimit that the
>> process gets killed after a few requests. I've re-opened
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731589 and the new
>> default will be a more more reasonable 250_000.
>>
>> I'm still keen on benchmarks, and I'll post my revised ones shortly. I
>> recommend editing mod_perl.pl and setting the size limit to 250_000 or
>> 750_000,
>> or wait for Bug 731589 to land.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Dylan Hardison <dylan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> I think PSGI is *ridiculously* faster than mod_perl
>>>
>>>
>>> Given a simple benchmark of calling apache bench against show_bug?id=1
>>> (with a simple testing db, mind you) I get 12 requests a second under PSGI
>>> (using HTTP::Server::PSGI) and 4 requests/second with mod_perl
>>>
>>> So mod_perl is about twice as fast CGI, but PSGI is three times faster
>>> than mod_perl.
>>>
>>> https://gist.github.com/dylanwh/d5c5498188c3866b7a03d
>>>
>>> So a call to people out there that have a working mod_perl setup ---
>>> please benchmark
>>> master on both mod_perl and PSGI and post the results here!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dylan.
>> -
>> To view or change your list settings, click here:
>> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=denis.roy at eclipse.org>
>>
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=dylan at mozilla.com>


From dylan at mozilla.com  Wed Jan 20 16:20:24 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:20:24 -0500
Subject: Intent to Deprecate CGI, and move to support mod_perl via PSGI
Message-ID: <CANx7wf=dd0Mbkoj2ONYUc_HxkeHbm96aLV05hJJ25V+KdmNb8w@mail.gmail.com>

I intend to deprecate CGI -- which means the following:

1) We need a solid, well documented migration path from CGI to PSGI.
This is of a prime concern to our Windows users (who largely rely on
CGI) but other platforms as well.
Note that the performance difference for CGI vs. persistent perl
interpreter on Windows will be enormous because of how slow
CreateProcess() is on Windows.

2) We won't remove CGI on a whim -- deprecating it means that we will
not be beholden to the requirements of CGI. Especially when we can
sacrifice compile-time speed for runtime speed.

Further, supporting anything other than PSGI is a burden we need not bear.
We will continue to support mod_perl, but we do not need to keep
maintaining the code in mod_perl.pl. We can replace that code with a
smaller footprint of https://metacpan.org/pod/Plack::Handler::Apache2
which is already in our dependency list. [Bug 1241149]

(As an aside, we can support CGI in a similar way with
Plack::Handler::CGI, but not without
changing the urls (http://bugzilla.example/bugzilla.cgi/index.cgi)
or URL rewriting, and a significant performance penalty.)

[Bug 1241149] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1241149


From gerv at mozilla.org  Wed Jan 27 14:38:03 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:38:03 +0000
Subject: Bugzilla meeting today at 21:00 UTC
Message-ID: <oNudnaNDiPjWSzXLnZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@mozilla.org>

The monthly Bugzilla meeting is today at 21:00 UTC:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Meetings

Please add items to the agenda on that wiki page if there's something
you want to discuss. If possible, I'd like to hear from Denis about
bugs.bugzilla.org, and also about what patches people are working on.

See you then :-)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 21:16:39 2016
From: elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com (RoseEgg)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:16:39 -0700 (MST)
Subject: How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow Ticket?
Message-ID: <1453929399003-350791.post@n7.nabble.com>

Hello,

How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically
create a ServiceNow ticket? 



--
View this message in context: http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791.html
Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From vladd at bugzilla.org  Wed Jan 27 22:21:07 2016
From: vladd at bugzilla.org (Vlad Dascalu)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:21:07 +0200
Subject: How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow Ticket?
In-Reply-To: <1453929399003-350791.post@n7.nabble.com>
References: <1453929399003-350791.post@n7.nabble.com>
Message-ID: <CAHzU5keStdPqksQvz=F4JuZUosvb=+RYSQOVMaU=ZfQoD2GxGg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rose

>> adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow ticket?

I assume you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow .

Your question doesn't describe the context around it. What's the
use-case? Do you want to duplicate bug reports in two systems (upon
creating a new bug in Bugzilla, have it mirrored in ServiceNow?) Why
do you want to do that? What should happen with the follow-up
comments? Try to describe the use-case behind your question.

There are two methods that might solve something related to your question:
1) you subscribe a user to receive mail and then you have a separate
process which processes that mail by creating ServiceNow entries.
2) you use bug_end_of_create hook from
https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/api/Bugzilla/Hook.html
but more information is needed to clarify what's the trigger for
creating ServiceNow entities.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:16 PM, RoseEgg <elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically
> create a ServiceNow ticket?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791.html
> Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=vladd at bugzilla.org>


From elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 22:28:57 2016
From: elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com (Elisabeth Bragg)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:28:57 -0500
Subject: Can Bugzilla Automatically Create a ServiceNow Ticket
Message-ID: <CAG_NhWCw5k4WUac=TXWC7aLatiXa-OJSLxANi6-FVFKtJCWMBw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla
automatically create a ServiceNow ticket?

Thank You for your feedback in advance,

Elisabeth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160127/317e9181/attachment.html>

From elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 21:51:20 2016
From: elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com (RoseEgg)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:51:20 -0700 (MST)
Subject: How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow Ticket?
In-Reply-To: <CAHzU5keStdPqksQvz=F4JuZUosvb=+RYSQOVMaU=ZfQoD2GxGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1453929399003-350791.post@n7.nabble.com> <CAHzU5keStdPqksQvz=F4JuZUosvb=+RYSQOVMaU=ZfQoD2GxGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAG_NhWBwanhLT14ARr6dgHVfTu0X8RA8OdHoo_sBcsOWwpNk2A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Vlad Dascalu-2,

Yes you are correct, I am referring to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow

The trigger for creating ServiceNow Tickets (or "entities" as you described
them), would be the following:

1.       The option to create a ServiceNow ticket is included as a field in
the Bugzilla Ticket, itself.
2        Once the option to create a ServiceNow ticket has been selected, a
ServiceNow ticket is automatically generated.

Currently, after the creation of a Bugzilla Ticket, I have to create
several ServiceNow Tickets. There is no data that I put into these
ServiceNow Tickets, they are empty.

To answer your other question, no, I do not wish to duplicate bug reports
in two systems.

I really appreciate your quick response and if there is anything else you
need from me please let me know,

Elisabeth

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Vlad Dascalu-2 [via Mozilla] <
ml-node+s6506n350792h67 at n7.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi Rose
>
> >> adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically create a
> ServiceNow ticket?
>
> I assume you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow .
>
> Your question doesn't describe the context around it. What's the
> use-case? Do you want to duplicate bug reports in two systems (upon
> creating a new bug in Bugzilla, have it mirrored in ServiceNow?) Why
> do you want to do that? What should happen with the follow-up
> comments? Try to describe the use-case behind your question.
>
> There are two methods that might solve something related to your question:
> 1) you subscribe a user to receive mail and then you have a separate
> process which processes that mail by creating ServiceNow entries.
> 2) you use bug_end_of_create hook from
> https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/api/Bugzilla/Hook.html
> but more information is needed to clarify what's the trigger for
> creating ServiceNow entities.
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:16 PM, RoseEgg <[hidden email]
> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=350792&i=0>> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla
> automatically
> > create a ServiceNow ticket?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791.html
> > Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > -
> > To view or change your list settings, click here:
> > <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=vladd at ...
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=vladd at bugzilla.org>>
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists+s6506n84121h51 at ...
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists+s6506n84121h51 at n7.nabble.com>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791p350792.html
> To unsubscribe from How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow
> Ticket?, click here
> <http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=350791&code=ZWxpc2FiZXRoLmJyYWdnQGdtYWlsLmNvbXwzNTA3OTF8LTU3MjU3MTgzOQ==>
> .
> NAML
> <http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
>




--
View this message in context: http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791p350794.html
Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160127/8deae95c/attachment.html>

From vladd at bugzilla.org  Wed Jan 27 22:51:55 2016
From: vladd at bugzilla.org (Vlad Dascalu)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:51:55 +0200
Subject: How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow Ticket?
In-Reply-To: <CAG_NhWBwanhLT14ARr6dgHVfTu0X8RA8OdHoo_sBcsOWwpNk2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1453929399003-350791.post@n7.nabble.com>
	<CAHzU5keStdPqksQvz=F4JuZUosvb=+RYSQOVMaU=ZfQoD2GxGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG_NhWBwanhLT14ARr6dgHVfTu0X8RA8OdHoo_sBcsOWwpNk2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHzU5kfWst7A--tLOWs0u+bF=PQgAC0A2PL3z3gY3F86PVVSnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rose

Based on your reply I recommend to spend a bit more time to think
about the relation between a bug and its generated ServiceNow tickets.

It's important to see if the relation between them is one-to-one OR
one-to-many. You said:

>> Once the option to create a ServiceNow ticket has been selected, a ServiceNow ticket is automatically generated

which would imply one-to-one but then the following suggests one-to-many:

>> after the creation of a Bugzilla Ticket, I have to create several ServiceNow Tickets

In addition, I recommend to think about the field that you want to add
not only as an option to create or not ServiceNow tickets, but rather
explore this question from the perspective of the bug life-cycle: is
this field going to help me for the duration of the bug's existence to
link between the two entities? Describe what the field means for the
bug entity as it is created (not as a workflow option in the bug
creation screen).

My last recommendation would be to decouple the ServiceNow creation
job and see it as something that you would just need to code or find
tools that do it. Your question becomes -- how can I invoke from
Bugzilla that code with the proper parameters, and the two suggestions
I gave are pretty good for that.

If you want to persist information backwards (get the hook created ids
back in a field, or just a boolean that they were created) you can
look for storage purposes at:
http://bugzilla.readthedocs.org/en/latest/integrating/extensions.html#adding-new-fields-to-bugs

Thanks
Vlad

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:51 PM, RoseEgg <elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Vlad Dascalu-2,
>
> Yes you are correct, I am referring to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow
>
> The trigger for creating ServiceNow Tickets (or "entities" as you described
> them), would be the following:
>
> 1.       The option to create a ServiceNow ticket is included as a field in
> the Bugzilla Ticket, itself.
> 2        Once the option to create a ServiceNow ticket has been selected, a
> ServiceNow ticket is automatically generated.
>
> Currently, after the creation of a Bugzilla Ticket, I have to create several
> ServiceNow Tickets. There is no data that I put into these ServiceNow
> Tickets, they are empty.
>
> To answer your other question, no, I do not wish to duplicate bug reports in
> two systems.
>
> I really appreciate your quick response and if there is anything else you
> need from me please let me know,
>
> Elisabeth
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Vlad Dascalu-2 [via Mozilla] <[hidden
> email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rose
>>
>> >> adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically create a
>> >> ServiceNow ticket?
>>
>> I assume you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow .
>>
>> Your question doesn't describe the context around it. What's the
>> use-case? Do you want to duplicate bug reports in two systems (upon
>> creating a new bug in Bugzilla, have it mirrored in ServiceNow?) Why
>> do you want to do that? What should happen with the follow-up
>> comments? Try to describe the use-case behind your question.
>>
>> There are two methods that might solve something related to your question:
>> 1) you subscribe a user to receive mail and then you have a separate
>> process which processes that mail by creating ServiceNow entries.
>> 2) you use bug_end_of_create hook from
>> https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/api/Bugzilla/Hook.html
>> but more information is needed to clarify what's the trigger for
>> creating ServiceNow entities.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:16 PM, RoseEgg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla
>> > automatically
>> > create a ServiceNow ticket?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> > http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791.html
>> > Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> > -
>> > To view or change your list settings, click here:
>> > <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=vladd at ...>
>> -
>> To view or change your list settings, click here:
>> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists+s6506n84121h51 at ...>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>>
>> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791p350792.html
>> To unsubscribe from How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow
>> Ticket?, click here.
>> NAML
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> View this message in context: Re: How can Bugzilla automatically create a
> ServiceNow Ticket?
>
> Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 22:05:57 2016
From: elisabeth.bragg at gmail.com (RoseEgg)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:05:57 -0700 (MST)
Subject: How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow Ticket?
In-Reply-To: <CAHzU5kfWst7A--tLOWs0u+bF=PQgAC0A2PL3z3gY3F86PVVSnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1453929399003-350791.post@n7.nabble.com> <CAHzU5keStdPqksQvz=F4JuZUosvb=+RYSQOVMaU=ZfQoD2GxGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG_NhWBwanhLT14ARr6dgHVfTu0X8RA8OdHoo_sBcsOWwpNk2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHzU5kfWst7A--tLOWs0u+bF=PQgAC0A2PL3z3gY3F86PVVSnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAG_NhWAXAV-BriTHrj+pd0=J4sU3gk5_bRdX_Mq5frCdRGTKqw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank You I will investigate the options that you provided.

Thank You again,

Rose

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Vlad Dascalu-2 [via Mozilla] <
ml-node+s6506n350795h60 at n7.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi Rose
>
> Based on your reply I recommend to spend a bit more time to think
> about the relation between a bug and its generated ServiceNow tickets.
>
> It's important to see if the relation between them is one-to-one OR
> one-to-many. You said:
>
> >> Once the option to create a ServiceNow ticket has been selected, a
> ServiceNow ticket is automatically generated
>
> which would imply one-to-one but then the following suggests one-to-many:
>
> >> after the creation of a Bugzilla Ticket, I have to create several
> ServiceNow Tickets
>
> In addition, I recommend to think about the field that you want to add
> not only as an option to create or not ServiceNow tickets, but rather
> explore this question from the perspective of the bug life-cycle: is
> this field going to help me for the duration of the bug's existence to
> link between the two entities? Describe what the field means for the
> bug entity as it is created (not as a workflow option in the bug
> creation screen).
>
> My last recommendation would be to decouple the ServiceNow creation
> job and see it as something that you would just need to code or find
> tools that do it. Your question becomes -- how can I invoke from
> Bugzilla that code with the proper parameters, and the two suggestions
> I gave are pretty good for that.
>
> If you want to persist information backwards (get the hook created ids
> back in a field, or just a boolean that they were created) you can
> look for storage purposes at:
>
> http://bugzilla.readthedocs.org/en/latest/integrating/extensions.html#adding-new-fields-to-bugs
>
> Thanks
> Vlad
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:51 PM, RoseEgg <[hidden email]
> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=350795&i=0>> wrote:
>
> > Hello Vlad Dascalu-2,
> >
> > Yes you are correct, I am referring to
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow
> >
> > The trigger for creating ServiceNow Tickets (or "entities" as you
> described
> > them), would be the following:
> >
> > 1.       The option to create a ServiceNow ticket is included as a field
> in
> > the Bugzilla Ticket, itself.
> > 2        Once the option to create a ServiceNow ticket has been
> selected, a
> > ServiceNow ticket is automatically generated.
> >
> > Currently, after the creation of a Bugzilla Ticket, I have to create
> several
> > ServiceNow Tickets. There is no data that I put into these ServiceNow
> > Tickets, they are empty.
> >
> > To answer your other question, no, I do not wish to duplicate bug
> reports in
> > two systems.
> >
> > I really appreciate your quick response and if there is anything else
> you
> > need from me please let me know,
> >
> > Elisabeth
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Vlad Dascalu-2 [via Mozilla] <[hidden
> > email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Rose
> >>
> >> >> adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically create a
> >> >> ServiceNow ticket?
> >>
> >> I assume you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServiceNow .
> >>
> >> Your question doesn't describe the context around it. What's the
> >> use-case? Do you want to duplicate bug reports in two systems (upon
> >> creating a new bug in Bugzilla, have it mirrored in ServiceNow?) Why
> >> do you want to do that? What should happen with the follow-up
> >> comments? Try to describe the use-case behind your question.
> >>
> >> There are two methods that might solve something related to your
> question:
> >> 1) you subscribe a user to receive mail and then you have a separate
> >> process which processes that mail by creating ServiceNow entries.
> >> 2) you use bug_end_of_create hook from
> >> https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/api/Bugzilla/Hook.html
> >> but more information is needed to clarify what's the trigger for
> >> creating ServiceNow entities.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:16 PM, RoseEgg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla
> >> > automatically
> >> > create a ServiceNow ticket?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > View this message in context:
> >> >
> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791.html
> >> > Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> > -
> >> > To view or change your list settings, click here:
> >> > <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=vladd at ...>
> >> -
> >> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> >> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists+s6506n84121h51 at ...>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the
> discussion
> >> below:
> >>
> >>
> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791p350792.html
> >> To unsubscribe from How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow
> >> Ticket?, click here.
> >> NAML
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > View this message in context: Re: How can Bugzilla automatically create
> a
> > ServiceNow Ticket?
> >
> > Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists+s6506n84121h51 at ...
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=lists+s6506n84121h51 at n7.nabble.com>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791p350795.html
> To unsubscribe from How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow
> Ticket?, click here
> <http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=350791&code=ZWxpc2FiZXRoLmJyYWdnQGdtYWlsLmNvbXwzNTA3OTF8LTU3MjU3MTgzOQ==>
> .
> NAML
> <http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
>




--
View this message in context: http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/How-can-Bugzilla-automatically-create-a-ServiceNow-Ticket-tp350791p350796.html
Sent from the Bugzilla - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160127/ed06a892/attachment.html>

From dylan at mozilla.com  Thu Jan 28 07:50:41 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:50:41 +0100
Subject: Can Bugzilla Automatically Create a ServiceNow Ticket
In-Reply-To: <CAG_NhWCw5k4WUac=TXWC7aLatiXa-OJSLxANi6-FVFKtJCWMBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG_NhWCw5k4WUac=TXWC7aLatiXa-OJSLxANi6-FVFKtJCWMBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANx7wfkn_5eNkKeekdXEaftdkOZCqHjO+Os9VsK8wx1nwH462g@mail.gmail.com>

This could be done from an extension and a little bit of experimentation.

To write an extension you need to know a little perl. A starting point
is http://bugzilla.readthedocs.org/en/latest/integrating/extensions.html

Conveniently, there is a perl API to Service Now on CPAN:
https://metacpan.org/pod/ServiceNow::SOAP

If I were doing this, I think I'd start with figuring out how to
create a ServiceNow ticket using that library
and then figure out the Bugzilla bits.

The Bugzilla bits is probably the bug_after_create() -- so your
extension would define that hook and use ServiceNow::SOAP to create
the ticket.

I think this is a useful extension idea. I'm sure you have more
questions -- if email is a bit too slow, I and other bugzilla
developers also hang out in #bugzilla on irc.mozilla.org.

Hope that helps, happy hacking! :-)


From gerv at mozilla.org  Thu Jan 28 10:51:15 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:51:15 +0000
Subject: How can Bugzilla automatically create a ServiceNow Ticket?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1964.1453932454.19907.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
References: <mailman.1964.1453932454.19907.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <7dKdnTSwBJg-bzTLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@mozilla.org>

On 27/01/16 21:16, RoseEgg wrote:
> How may I go about adding the functionality of having Bugzilla automatically
> create a ServiceNow ticket? 

It might be good to contact the bugzilla.mozilla.org developers about
this, or look at their code:
http://git.mozilla.org/?p=webtools/bmo/bugzilla.git

I believe that BMO has some integrations with ServiceNow.

Gerv

_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla