Description of problem: When a bug report is identified as a duplicate of an existing bug report, a comment may be added to the existing bug report. This comment includes a minimal amount of information concerning the reason for the report. The comment does not include the exception string from the traceback in the case of a Python exception. For duplicate reports the exception string may not be exactly the same as the exception string for the original report, so it might be useful to include it, so that BZ searches could find it. For example, I reproduced this bug: Bug 868589 - ValueError: Device 'vda1' not in tree My report turned out to be a duplicate, so I manually attached a log showing a traceback with a slightly different exception string: ValueError: Device 'fedora-swap' not in tree (Bug 868589, Comment 15) When the duplicate report is for a bug that has been closed as a duplicate, the report is added as a comment to the parent bug of the duplicate bug. In this case, the comment loses all context, because the comment does not include the bug number or the exception string. For example, Bug 868755, Comment 38, was redirected from Bug 872926, but the comment does not include this information. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): libreport-0:2.0.17-1.fc18.x86_64 Fedora-18-Beta-TC7-x86_64-Live-Desktop.iso How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Crash anaconda on the Live CD. 2. Add a comment to the problem description. 3. Report to a pre-existing bug that is a duplicate. Actual results: Comment does not include exception string. Comment does not include bug number, if redirected to parent bug. For example, Bug 872833, Comment 15, has only two lines of annotation: Package: anaconda-18.27-1.fc18.x86_64 OS Release: Fedora release 18 Expected results: Comment contains exception string. Comment contains bug number, if redirected to parent bug. Additional info:
Created attachment 642109 [details] screenshot showing libreport window with exception string and bug numbers This screenshot shows information that is not included in the comment added to the parent bug: 1. The exception string: PayloadInstallError: rsync exited with code 12 2. The bug number for which the report is a duplicate: Bug 872926. This information is not included in Bug 868755, Comment 38.
Basically, what you ask for is to attach "anaconda-tb-FOO" log file to dups too. If it'd always have the same name (say, "anaconda-tb") I could trivially easily add it to bugzilla_formatdup_anaconda.conf's %attach section. However, it doesn't. Example: bug 999440, file is named "anaconda-tb-dSnN7H", not "anaconda-tb". Sure, extending BZ reporter's .conf format to support wildcards isn't hard, it can be done. But considering that *other users of this data* will have similar needs to fetch anaconda-tb log by a known name, not by wildcard (and have to deal with interesting choices "whai if there are more than one?" etc), it makes sense for anaconda to start creating a consistent, same name every time instead. I'm trying to find where this file name originates.
>> When the duplicate report is for a bug that has been closed as a duplicate, the report is added as a comment to the parent bug of the duplicate bug. In this case, the comment loses all context, because the comment does not include the bug number or the exception string. Partially addressing this problem: Patch sent to ML: From 92c91516d5b4eea75e423a88dc651a4febd5a067 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:02:42 +0200 Subject: [LIBREPORT PATCH] bugzilla_formatdup*.conf: clearly flag comment as a dup.
(In reply to Denys Vlasenko from comment #2) > Basically, what you ask for is to attach "anaconda-tb-FOO" log file to dups > too. ... This bug is about annotating duplicate reports as duplicates ... Was this comment intended for a different bug?
(In reply to Steve Tyler from comment #0) > Actual results: > Comment does not include exception string. > Comment does not include bug number, if redirected to parent bug. > For example, Bug 872833, Comment 15, has only two lines of annotation: > > Package: anaconda-18.27-1.fc18.x86_64 > OS Release: Fedora release 18 > > Expected results: > Comment contains exception string. > Comment contains bug number, if redirected to parent bug. The "Comment contains exception string" already happens in current version. This is what happens when a comment is added to existing BZ: -------- Description of problem: <user's comment goes here, if present> Version-Release number of selected component: python-2.7.3-13.fc18 Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.1.9.9.gdef1.dirty cmdline: /usr/bin/python2.7 /usr/bin/pydoc executable: /usr/bin/pydoc kernel: 3.10.11-100.fc18.x86_64 runlevel: N 5 type: Python uid: 0 Truncated backtrace: pydoc:2:<module>:ZeroDivisionError: integer division or modulo by zero <== EXCEPTION STR ... --------- However, this comment is quite wordy, it needs to be brought in line with coredump problems reporting, by using bugzilla_formatdup.conf for python too. That file defines a smaller comment format for dups. It specifies that all one-line elements in problem directory should be included in the dup comment. Exception string is stored in the "reason" element. It's an one-liner. The resulting comment in BZ will look like this (from test bug 1026853): ------------- Another user experienced a similar problem: <user's comment goes here, if present> reporter: libreport-2.1.9.9.gdef1.dirty cmdline: /usr/bin/python2.7 /usr/bin/pydoc executable: /usr/bin/pydoc kernel: 3.10.11-100.fc18.x86_64 package: python-2.7.3-13.fc18 reason: pydoc:2:<module>:ZeroDivisionError: integer division or modulo by zero runlevel: N 5 type: Python uid: 0 ------------- I am preparing an upstream patch. I don't immediately see why "Comment contains bug number, if redirected to parent bug" is needed. If BZ is a duplicate, the parent BZ will already have automatic "Duplicate of this bug: NNN" comment, and also it will have "Duplicates: NNN, MMM" attribute. Adding *yet another* such comment seems unnecessary.
Upstream commit ccc1434eea8e090a97676a97c8bb78731269d911 fixes this bug.
abrt-2.1.10-1.fc18,libreport-2.1.10-1.fc18,satyr-0.12-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abrt-2.1.10-1.fc18,libreport-2.1.10-1.fc18,satyr-0.12-1.fc18
Package abrt-2.1.10-1.fc18, libreport-2.1.10-1.fc18, satyr-0.12-1.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing abrt-2.1.10-1.fc18 libreport-2.1.10-1.fc18 satyr-0.12-1.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-23306/abrt-2.1.10-1.fc18,libreport-2.1.10-1.fc18,satyr-0.12-1.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
This message is a reminder that Fedora 18 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 18. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '18'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 18's end of life. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 18 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 18's end of life. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 18 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2014-01-14. Fedora 18 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.