From dev-return-2661-apmail-bloodhound-dev-archive=bloodhound.apache.org@bloodhound.apache.org Mon May 6 13:40:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-bloodhound-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-bloodhound-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76A06F812 for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 13:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 82584 invoked by uid 500); 6 May 2013 13:40:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-bloodhound-dev-archive@bloodhound.apache.org Received: (qmail 82476 invoked by uid 500); 6 May 2013 13:40:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@bloodhound.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@bloodhound.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@bloodhound.apache.org Received: (qmail 82433 invoked by uid 500); 6 May 2013 13:40:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 82421 invoked by uid 99); 6 May 2013 13:40:40 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 May 2013 13:40:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.128.47] (HELO mail-qe0-f47.google.com) (209.85.128.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 May 2013 13:40:34 +0000 Received: by mail-qe0-f47.google.com with SMTP id w7so2026481qeb.20 for ; Mon, 06 May 2013 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=fF0xK+yNKRBacGbLNAavHiMQcku0/821cFB6i0Z9Yb8=; b=bGtT23SSiJwYZDCHyTkuqCwiILynDz9l40kNSqNTPek429J/svbpsMzE7nzN/FQDKO VmvMnq0i9FWUM0e5c0b8X7qRA97oPXdUAHCHvkz31oc257fbv0koffgxzEXRB7/7aDJ0 PiT5hHe1nDqXBLDqhJAhRzEpAnelt2p3c9I8ZCq18KoHsVV3BanGkmBBIJIZd6HNorNQ OjPtunAuntdgSylJoxZyP/U7/XCyLXLFnOs0LhK/b8H01iWktEs66ZhG3QepHiQvQXsy hskvzCQZtA/5K2l5OY4hwW6iS5UvJUaFgD3ien5S7cj3U9rm39FrN8HCpMcM5NsTbHuE cTuw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.109.166 with SMTP id ht6mr22682471qeb.49.1367847593271; Mon, 06 May 2013 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.105.229 with HTTP; Mon, 6 May 2013 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 15:39:53 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: BEP-0006 Ticket Relations, requirements clarifications From: Andrej Golcov To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlaS5NUmBGEd/5u1KNA1eBvP9eWG0sBkpcar9Mmt8lWGsy+TSQPsRh01ePODItQaUZGwZRd X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi all, Bhrelations API is more or less stabile now. It is possible to create and delete relations with optional cycle validation. There is also possibility to reject ticket resolution if there are open children tickets. While bhrelations is designed to provide relations for different resource types, ticket relations require more deep integration. I would like to discuss how creation or deletion of ticket relation should be reflected in tickets, notifications and history. For example, user established a new "depends on" relation between two tickets - in bhrelations that means two relations: #t1 depends on #t2 and #t2 dependent from #t1 . Does it mean that both tickets were modified? Should we generate two "ticket changed" mails? Personally, I don't think that tickets should be modified on a bhrelation modification. I would suggest the following integration between tickets and bhrelations on relation creation or deletion: - insert records into the ticket_change table for both tickets to obtain history - introduce a new "BhRelationChanged" interface to enable "relation changed" mail notifications. As part of the solution: we can provide our own events and add-on for AnnouncerPlugin and TracNotification - add add-on for bhsearch to enable search through tickets by relations Thoughts, suggestions? Cheers, Andrej