|Summary:||Display warning page if dup bug has different project, version, or component fields|
|Product:||[Community] Bugzilla||Reporter:||Prarit Bhargava <prarit>|
|Component:||Bugzilla General||Assignee:||Matt Tyson 🤬 <mtyson>|
|Status:||CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE||QA Contact:||tools-bugs <tools-bugs>|
|Version:||devel||CC:||jfearn, jingwang, roland|
|Target Milestone:||4.2-7||Keywords:||FutureFeature, Regression, Reopened|
|Fixed In Version:||4.2.4-7||Doc Type:||Enhancement|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2012-12-07 00:44:01 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Prarit Bhargava 2006-10-27 00:12:39 UTC
Description of problem: This is more of a feature request/enhancement ... I should not be allowed to dup BZs that are in different versions of software product, or maybe it should give me a loud warning. I admit that sometimes I get lazy or I forget to check the version field before I dup a RHEL4 bug to a RHEL5 bug, etc., so it would be nice to have a warning come up saying that I'm about to do something incredibly dumb ;) I've noticed this happen in some other BZs so maybe I'm not the only one who gets in trouble for doing this :) See comments in bug 207002. P.
Comment 1 Roland McGrath 2006-10-27 00:36:33 UTC
After haranguing Prarit, I was just going to file this same RFE wrt differing Product fields, or even just specific prohibition on Fedora vs RHEL matching since RHEL Beta vs RHEL product is often valid (as is Fedora N vs Fedora devel version fields sometimes).
Comment 2 Prarit Bhargava 2006-10-27 00:42:15 UTC
>or even just specific prohibition on Fedora vs RHEL matching I'm not so sure that works. There are times when RHEL-devel == Fedora-devel and we do dup bugs against each other. A prohibition is probably too strong -- I think a loud warning would suffice and a "Are you really sure you want to do this?" button would be nice :) P.
Comment 4 Simon Green 2012-05-10 13:12:56 UTC
Is this enhancement still wanted? -- simon
Comment 5 Prarit Bhargava 2012-05-10 13:20:53 UTC
(In reply to comment #4) > Is this enhancement still wanted? > Yes, I think it is still a good idea. We still occasionally have engineers who accidentally do this. P.
Comment 6 Simon Green 2012-05-11 04:46:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #5) > Yes, I think it is still a good idea. We still occasionally have engineers who > accidentally do this. Fair enough. It will be a warning page rather than a complete block.
Comment 7 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2012-05-30 05:47:44 UTC
There should be a preference to disable this warning if a user doesn't want it. This feature should be added to a major release so that time can be provided to warn users of the change in functionality.
Comment 8 Simon Green 2012-09-10 23:16:00 UTC
Moving to the next release as this wasn't completed on time for release 5. -- simon
Comment 12 Simon Green 2012-11-19 03:36:46 UTC
Turns out this part wasn't implemented "There should be a preference to disable this warning if a user doesn't want it.". There was also a bug which QE identified today as well ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877547#c5 ) -- simon
Comment 15 Simon Green 2012-11-20 22:25:19 UTC
Two things need to be fixed as part of release 7. 1) On the warning page, the links to the bug numbers are not valid. 2) You don't need a separate parameter section for this, it should be in the 'Bug Change Policies' section.