I made an old bug tracker tool. It searches for bug id-s in the TestExpectations file and lists which has "RESOLVED" status. Run example: ./oldbugvalidator.sh /home/path/to/TestExpectations Now this is a WIP solution, but helped me a lot with closing old bugs. Our plans are to rewrite it in python.
I think you missed to attach your WIP tool. :)
Created attachment 205677 [details] OldBugValidatorTool Somehow it wasn't attached to my comment.
Attachment 205677 [details] did not pass style-queue: Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files']" exit_code: 1 Total errors found: 0 in 0 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment on attachment 205677 [details] OldBugValidatorTool Attachment 205677 [details] did not pass mac-ews (mac): Output: http://webkit-queues.appspot.com/results/948649 New failing tests: media/video-zoom.html
Created attachment 205698 [details] Archive of layout-test-results from webkit-ews-08 for mac-mountainlion The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the mac-ews. Bot: webkit-ews-08 Port: mac-mountainlion Platform: Mac OS X 10.8.3
Created attachment 206245 [details] OldBugValidatorTool Python The implementation of Old Bug Validator in Python.
Attachment 206245 [details] did not pass style-queue: Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'Tools/ChangeLog', u'Tools/Scripts/old-bug-validator.py']" exit_code: 1 Tools/ChangeLog:1: ChangeLog entry has no bug number [changelog/bugnumber] [5] Total errors found: 1 in 2 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=206245&action=review > Tools/Scripts/old-bug-validator.py:34 > +parser = OptionParser(usage=usage, description="Checking the given TestExpectations file looking for \"https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123\" or \"webkit.org/b/123\" styled bugs, and collect the ones with RESOLVED status. (RESOLVED FIXED, RESOLVED DUPLICATE, RESOLVED WONTFIX, ...).") If you use " inside the string then don't escape it just use ' around the string instead of the " that way you don't need to escape the inner quotes. > Tools/Scripts/old-bug-validator.py:67 > + result = re.search("<span id='"'static_bug_status'"'>RESOLVED", html) err... this string looks really weird. what do you wanted to do here?
View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=206245&action=review > Tools/ChangeLog:5 > + Reviewed by Csaba Osztrogonác. I don't think this is reviewed yet. You should not fill this out before review :) > Tools/Scripts/old-bug-validator.py:62 > +#get the bugzilla sites and look for the RESOLVED... status just a nit: space after the # and start with a capital letter to form a sentence.
Comment on attachment 206245 [details] OldBugValidatorTool Python View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=206245&action=review Thanks for posting the patch. However, this shouldn't be a standalone python script. There is a code to parse TestExpectations under Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests. We should be using that parser instead. There is also a code to fetch Bugzilla data. See code in Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool. > Tools/ChangeLog:3 > + Implementing Old Bug Validator Tool in Python. The aim is to check TestExpectations file for RESOLVED bugs in an easier way. This line should be of the bug summary & url. See other entries. This long description should appear below Reviewed by line. Agan, see other entries. Please read http://www.webkit.org/coding/contributing.html. > Tools/Scripts/old-bug-validator.py:4 > +# Copyright (C) 2013 University of Szeged > +# Copyright (C) 2013 Gabor Abraham <abrhm@inf.u-szeged.hu> > +# All rights reserved. Wrong copyright format. See other files.
(In reply to comment #10) > Thanks for posting the patch. However, this shouldn't be a standalone python script. Of course it can be easy to add it as a new webkit-patch command. > There is a code to parse TestExpectations under Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests. > We should be using that parser instead. The TestExpectations parser in layout_tests/models/test_expectations.py would be overkiller and it isn't suitable for this use case now. It parses only "The new format for a test expectation line": [[bugs] [ "[" <configuration modifiers> "]" <name> [ "[" <expectations> "]" ["#" <comment>] where bugs must be in "webkit.org/b/XXXXX" format. But there are URLs in the comment sections too in different formats. I don't think if we should refactor test_expectations.py instead of the oneliner regexp. > There is also a code to fetch Bugzilla data. See code in Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool. It can be used if it doesn't have too much dependencies and if we can avoid the mandatory bugzilla authentication somehow. Because it is a non-sense if we wan't to force the user to authenticate if fetching a bugzilla URL doesn't need authentication at all. Otherwise I still think that a urllib2.urlopen(...) oneliner is much more simpler than solving all of these problems, because we want to integrate everything to the existing webkitpy infrastructure regardless of expense.
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > There is a code to parse TestExpectations under Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests. > > We should be using that parser instead. > > The TestExpectations parser in layout_tests/models/test_expectations.py > would be overkiller and it isn't suitable for this use case now. > > It parses only "The new format for a test expectation line": > [[bugs] [ "[" <configuration modifiers> "]" <name> [ "[" <expectations> "]" ["#" <comment>] > > where bugs must be in "webkit.org/b/XXXXX" format. But there are > URLs in the comment sections too in different formats. I don't think > if we should refactor test_expectations.py instead of the oneliner regexp. If there is a use case for parsing comments, then we should support that in test_expectations.py maybe as an option. The problem with adding one line regular expression like this is that it'll make the future format change harder. > > There is also a code to fetch Bugzilla data. See code in Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/tool. > > It can be used if it doesn't have too much dependencies and > if we can avoid the mandatory bugzilla authentication somehow. > Because it is a non-sense if we wan't to force the user to authenticate > if fetching a bugzilla URL doesn't need authentication at all. It's sensible to require authentication if bugs have restricted accesses. We can certainly add a mode to avoid authentication to bugzilla code.
Created attachment 206876 [details] Proposed patch Now it can be used as a webkit-patch command, and using Bugzilla class to check the bugs.
Comment on attachment 206876 [details] Proposed patch Only one thing is missing, the TestExpectations parsing by layout_tests/models/test_expectations.py . But it would be overkiller for this tool. I think we can live with it now, and we can fix it later in a separated bug. So r=me.
Comment on attachment 206876 [details] Proposed patch Clearing flags on attachment: 206876 Committed r152779: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/152779>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.