Re: Regarding Bug 7953

On 10/20/07, Victor Boctor <vboctor-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> Hi Daryn,
>
> I don't have the code handy now, but I agree with you that moving such
> logic to bugnote_add() is a better approach.  The logic should be as
> follows:
>
> bugnote_add()
> - if note is empty and time is empty, return.
> - if time is not empty, set note type to time tracking, otherwise, use
> notetype passed in.
> - process as usual.
>
> This way all places that call bugnote_add() can call it without having
> to check whether it will end up being a productive call or whether it
> will end up being a normal note or a time tracking note.
>
> Again, this is all based on memory, so my response may not be
> accurate, but it should convey the approach that I have in mind.
> Basically, I would love to reduce the logic in the script pages and
> have the APIs provide all such business logic.  This also provides
> benefit to webservice API that are built directly on top of the core
> API, otherwise, we will have to replicate the logic there as well.

I agree on the general concept that the logic in pages should be moved
to the underlying API as much as possible.

In this case, I think the main problem is that bugnote_add() should be
used to add, you know... a bugnote (and nothing else).

You should also have a look at a past discussion about time tracking
and bugnotes "types" in general:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bug-tracking.mantis.devel/1312

where I made a proposal that could help (despite I'm sure if you could
analyze the overall design issue, a even better solution could be more
obvious)

thanks for your help

Gianluca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/