Issue 113868 - EIS should notify issues about their cws state
Summary: EIS should notify issues about their cws state
Status: CLOSED NOT_AN_OOO_ISSUE
Alias: None
Product: Build Tools
Classification: Code
Component: www (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: Unknown All
: P3 Trivial with 2 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 113866
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2010-08-13 14:53 UTC by bjoern.michaelsen
Modified: 2013-03-29 00:55 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description bjoern.michaelsen 2010-08-13 14:53:17 UTC 
When an issue is added to a CWS, EIS should:
- Change its state from UNCONFIRMED or NEW to STARTED
- Change the target of the issue to the target of the CWS (see issue 113866)
- comment to the issue:
"EIS: issue added to CWS $CWSNAME with target $TARGET"

When an issue is removed from a CWS, EIS should:
- comment to the issue:
"EIS: issue removed from CWS $CWSNAME"
- leave other fields untouched

rationale: Reliefs devs of errorprone target updates.
Comment 1 bjoern.michaelsen 2010-08-13 14:54:51 UTC 
(partially) depending on 113866
Comment 2 bernd.eilers 2010-08-13 15:11:14 UTC 
bei->b_michaelsen: adding an issue to a CWS is not always equivalent to really
start working on the issue. A CWS may be a long time in the status planned and
have issues added to it without any real work on any issue being started. Also
changing the state of the CWS from planned to started does not automatically
imply than that the work on ALL issues added to the CWS has been started at that
time, the developer might have begun work just for some of them. So in the end
well it´s only the developer who really knows what he/she is really working on
and there is no automated process possible which "reliefs" him/her from
documenting that adequately although some might see this as a burden.
Comment 3 bjoern.michaelsen 2010-08-13 15:32:57 UTC 
That does not change the fact, that adding an issue to a cws should be visible
on the issue too.
Whether an issue should automatically change to STARTED is open to debate, so it
would be enough to have a checkbox on the EIS interface "change issue state to
started, if currently NEW or UNCONFIRMED".

But the important part of the issue is, that EIS should update the issue about
cws state at all.
Comment 4 bernd.eilers 2010-08-13 15:53:27 UTC 
bei->b_michaelsen: I agree that adding a comment would make sense this feature
request is duplicate to i66549.
Comment 5 Frank Schönheit 2010-08-13 20:32:22 UTC 
I don't think that tampering with the issue state is a good idea, this is too
error-prone for my taste.
However, tracking the addition and removal of issues to/from a CWS, in the
issues themselves, would be a Very Good Thing (TM).
Comment 6 Frank Schönheit 2010-12-06 14:57:28 UTC 
Note: with the upcoming move to the Kenai infrastructure, we have full control
over our bug tracking system (a Bugzilla flavour, that is). This includes adding
fields - like "CWS".

Somehow I think this is worth being evaluated. In this case, it would not be EIS
maintaining the list of issues belonging to a CWS, but the issue tracking system
itself. IMO, this would solve quite a number of problems we currently have with
our duplicate housekeeping (including problems which I suppose lead to the
request in issue 113866).

This would not solve this problem here, but be somewhat related ...
Comment 7 Regina Henschel 2013-03-29 00:55:00 UTC 
EIS and cws no longer exist.