Project:Pywikibot/Migrating to bugzilla

Migration plan edit

Note: has just migrated the project from the old bug tracker system to the new one ('Allura'). See

WMF Contacs edit
Name edit


  • Pywikipedia (per mailing list) or Pywikipediabot (per Manual:Pywikipediabot) are simple enough. Legoktm (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree on pywikipedia because I think "bot" is redundant, see other py tools, numpy not numpytools, scipy not scipysimulationpackage :D, ... Ladsgroup (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I propose pywikibot which is the group name in git/gerrit. The bot is not only for Wikipedia but for other wikis too.  @xqt 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Because we named git/gerrit pywikibot, I'm fine with naming it the same here. Multichill (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • personally I prefer pywikipedia but because other people prefer pywikibot (and they used it in git, nightlies, pywikibot-commits-l and so many other places) so I support "pywikibot" because of homogeneity (unity) Ladsgroup (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Components edit

The current labels are:

  • Category
  • copyright
  • cosmetic_changes
  • Genral
  • GUI
  • i18n
  • interwiki
  • login
  • network
  • other
  • redirect
  • rewrite
  • solve_disambiguation
  • weblinkchecker
  • I think we should use categories of sf as components talk) 03:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think we should change this, for example no more need of interwiki but we should add wikidata, and we should correct order of this list (It's totally alphabetical now) for example general must be first and other must be lastLadsgroup (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Bugzilla only allows components to be sorted by alphabet. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Components are good to make small area's of interest. We should have components for the different low level parts in core and compat, maybe for different libraries that are used by several tools and probably for the different (heavy usage) tools. We can always add/remove components if needed. Multichill (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amir's Proposal edit
  • category
  • copyright
  • cosmetic_changes
  • Genral
  • i18n
  • login
  • network
  • redirect
  • solve_disambiguation
  • weblinkchecker
  • wikidata

What do you think? Ladsgroup (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking bugs edit
  • how can we make sure bugs link to eachother? i.e. a link from BZ to and from to BZ? - Valhallasw (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Tickets in Bugzilla have a "See Also" field which allows adding URLs. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] export edit
  • how can we get an export from I know there *should* be a button, but I can't find it. If you need any permissions for this, let me know. - Valhallasw (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the upgrade, the old export function (which exports XML) will not be updated. The current version does not have backup functionality (see this bug), but there is a REST API: docs example 1 example 2

Anonymous bugs edit

Can we allow anonymous/openid submitted bugs? I think there has been discussion about this on wikitech-l, so it might be good to bump that. - Valhallasw (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I strongly disagree about it but i think we should obey general bugzilla policies (If it will be changed) talk) 03:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See these threads: [1] [2] for OpenID progress.

Mailing list edit

Pywikipedia-bugs should be switched. We probably need to add the bugzilla mail address as permitted sender?

Does BZ support sending only pwb bugs to this mailing list?

Yes, we can just add it as a default CC. Legoktm (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated pywikipedia-bugs so that bugzilla can post to it. Multichill (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closed bugs edit

Importing edit

I've started putting together some code at [3] (requested a repo in gerrit for it), to export from sf into bugzilla. Few questions:

  • Should all the history be in the first comment? Or should each comment be individual comments like in bugzilla:2?
  • Should we mark the bugs as closed? Or just leave a comment with the bugzilla link and keep them open forever.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think multiple comments is easier to understand. As for closing the bugs - maybe we can create a status 'Moved to bugzilla' on, which disables commenting? I have to check that for you. Valhallasw (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example: I've filed some months ago: it could be closed on, because of gerrit:80698, but I still can't found a bugzilla equivalent. --Ricordisamoa 02:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't get here. So there are bugs and enhancement requests. And there are "patches". To me, a bug or an enhancement request receive a patch to fix them. So "Patch" is just the "next step" after filing a bug or enhancement. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This system belongs to the svn era not git so when someone make a patch and send a patch request, means someone with access has to merge the patch, we don't need this anymore Ladsgroup (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Script to-dos edit

  • OAuth login to - I have a patch for this locally Legoktm (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Set priority based on where bug came from (bugs -> normal, feature requests -> enhancement)
      Done Ladsgroup (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]