-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adding a patch on Bugzilla creates a meaningless comment on Jira #984
Comments
Expanding this a bit more, in this scenario I think we want the workflow to be:
Possible comment format to Jira:
Edited to remove part of step four based on comments below. |
I would leave this part to Jira automation for now. We also have #249 |
Yep, I would agree that Jira automation should be easily able to take care of this with better data in the comment. That's also something that's very project/workflow specific so this would also allow teams to decide if this is something they want and how exactly to act on it as needed. |
The change in #997 removed the only rudimentary way to put things in review via automation even though it wasn't ideal. Is there any ETA on being able to provide the details of Phabricator attachments? |
We haven't really planned anything about this. Since #997 seems to be a regression for you, I propose that we cover your use-case with a minimal code change. I enabled
We don't have enough information in the event to display the name of the attachment, but at least we could post a comment that could look like: |
On Bugzilla:
On Jira:
Event payload received from Bugzilla seems to be:
See https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/page.cgi?id=webhooks.html
See #154 #249
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: