Bug 911460

Summary:	Bug.update documentation for 'alias' is wrong
Product:	[Community] Bugzilla	Reporter:	Rohan McGovern <rmcgover>
Component:	WebService	Assignee:	Simon Green <sgreen>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	tools-bugs <tools-bugs>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	4.4	CC:	ebaak, jingwang
Target Milestone:	4.4-3
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	4.4-3	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-05-20 11:06:29 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	858932

Description Rohan McGovern 2013-02-15 05:07:57 UTC

At time of writing, documentation at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/docs/en/html/api/Bugzilla/WebService/Bug.html#update for the 'alias' parameter says:

> (string) The alias of the bug. You can only set this
> if you are modifying a single bug. If there is more than
> one bug specified in ids, passing in a value for alias will
> cause an error to be thrown.

However, attempting to call Bug.update with alias set to a string gives an error of the form:

>  Not a HASH reference at Bugzilla/Bug.pm line 2778.

(observed on version 4.4.rc1-2.b01)

From inspecting the code, it looks like Red Hat's bugzilla treats "alias" as a list field with add/remove operations, but the documentation hasn't been updated to reflect this.

Comment 1 Simon Green 2013-02-15 05:24:43 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> From inspecting the code, it looks like Red Hat's bugzilla treats "alias" as
> a list field with add/remove operations, but the documentation hasn't been
> updated to reflect this.

It should be able to take a string or a hash (just like the components and version do for upstream compatibility). The solution is to fix the code, not the documentation :)

Comment 4 Simon Green 2013-02-20 00:59:46 UTC

I take back what I said in comment #1. For updates, we really do need to do it properly to reduce the amount of hackage required. Therefore the documentation will be updated.

  -- simon