After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 357399 - blue sky: bugs_activity searches in boogle
blue sky: bugs_activity searches in boogle
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: bugzilla.gnome.org
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: boogle
unspecified
Other Linux
: Low enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Bugzilla Maintainers
Bugzilla Maintainers
Depends on: 472648
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-09-24 00:55 UTC by Elijah Newren
Modified: 2015-02-11 11:20 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Elijah Newren 2006-09-24 00:55:45 UTC
One of the reasons users may feel they need to use the complicated bug search form instead of boogle is the bugs_activtity table searching.  I still have no idea what syntax I want to use for this and it'll probably be a lot of work even once I do.  Maybe something along the lines of
  bugs_activity:product=metacity
for search for bugs which changed product to metacity or
  bugs_activity:date>=YYYY-MM-DD:date<=YYYY-MM-DD:resolution=fixed
for bugs marked fixed between two given dates or
  bugs_activity:who=<email_addy>:date>=YYYY-MM-DD
to find bugs changed by a certain person after a given date.

While the dates could allow ranges, other fields cannot (since it'll be an actual string search).  Similarly, '=' would have to be used instead of ':', since the later is used to separate multiple entries.

The "who" thing looks particularly cool, being something the 'complicated' bug search form can't do.  :)  It might be nice to come up with syntax allowing for searches of the removed field as well, instead of just the added field.  I'm really not sure how to do that.
Comment 1 Elijah Newren 2006-09-27 02:38:17 UTC
In order to handle the added and removed fields, I could just prefix with a + or -.  However, having

  +product=metacity:-product=nautilus

to search for bugs that switched from nautilus to metacity seems kind of dumb since "product" is specified twice.  Further, that would allow a bug:

  +product=metacity:-resolution=unconfirmed

which wouldn't match anything.  Unfortunately, that'd be a very common gotcha that people wouldn't understand.  So, the syntax for added/removed still needs some more refinement.  (Maybe "field=product:+metacity:-nautilus" ?  That would allow for just searches like "filed=product" as well, which would allow checks for product changes without specifying all possible products)