action #38957
closed[functional] Refactor the openqa-review code to not use "Issue" object for the messages that does not have a valid bugref.
0%
Description
There is a case in openQA, when soft fail is raised, but it does not contain a valid bug reference ('bugref' is a ticket number on Bugzilla or Progress tracking systems, written in a format of #, e.g. bcs#12345, poo#12345).
In the past, those soft-fail messages did not appear in the report and even might broke the report generation, as invalid bugref might be found.
We've fixed this behavior in poo#35760 with some workarounds. According to @dheidler, the message, that does not contain a valid bugref, should not be an Issue object, as the object was designed to represent an issue from bug tracker.
The task is to refactor the existing code in order to avoid using Issue object for the soft-fail messages, that does not contain a valid bugref.
Updated by oorlov over 6 years ago
- Related to action #35760: [functional][u][medium] work on any issue from http://github.com/okurz/openqa_review/issues/ added
Updated by okurz over 6 years ago
- Subject changed from [functional] Refactor the openqa-review code to not use "Issue" object for the messages that does not have a valid bugref. to [functional][u] Refactor the openqa-review code to not use "Issue" object for the messages that does not have a valid bugref.
- Category set to Enhancement to existing tests
- Target version set to Milestone 19
Updated by okurz over 6 years ago
- Target version changed from Milestone 19 to future
Updated by mgriessmeier almost 5 years ago
- Subject changed from [functional][u] Refactor the openqa-review code to not use "Issue" object for the messages that does not have a valid bugref. to [functional] Refactor the openqa-review code to not use "Issue" object for the messages that does not have a valid bugref.
- Assignee set to okurz
please check if this already done, nothing for u team though, since we don't use openqa_review anymore for manually generating report
Updated by okurz almost 5 years ago
you rely on it for automatic reports though, right?
Updated by okurz almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from New to Rejected
I am a bit sad with what happened here. Someone added a feature and did it "hacky" style to finish the ticket early. Then as a response to #35760#note-25 this ticket was created to finish the task for good by including the relevant refactoring to not increase the technical dept. And now you don't want it to be followed up with. By now I myself have a very hard time to do a refactoring around this area as it is was mainly dheidler+oorlov et al. who introduced the code for the "Issue" object. Feels like the next time I will not give others the permission to merge in a repo that easily.