Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #745: Edit workflow dialog may be partially hidden by activity feed
#745: Edit workflow dialog may be partially hidden by activity feed + Reporter: rjollos| Owner: nobody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: ui design |Version: Resolution: | Keywords: + Changes (by rjollos): * status: closed = new * resolution: wontfix = -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/745#comment:3 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #745: Edit workflow dialog may be partially hidden by activity feed
#745: Edit workflow dialog may be partially hidden by activity feed + Reporter: rjollos| Owner: nobody Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: ui design |Version: Resolution: duplicate | Keywords: + Changes (by rjollos): * status: new = closed * resolution: = duplicate -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/745#comment:4 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #634: Ticket comments overlap edit workflow drop-down dialog
#634: Ticket comments overlap edit workflow drop-down dialog +--- Reporter: rjollos| Owner: nobody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Release 9 Component: relations |Version: 0.6.0 Resolution: | Keywords: +--- Comment (by rjollos): #745 closed as duplicate. More info can be found in that ticket. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/634#comment:2 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #771: Improve test case coverage for trac-admin command
#771: Improve test case coverage for trac-admin command ---+ Reporter: rjollos | Owner: nobody Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Release 9 Component: multiproduct |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: trac-1.0.2 ---+ Changes (by rjollos): * keywords: = trac-1.0.2 -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/771#comment:2 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #769: Move multiproduct changes to resource module from trac.resource to multiproduct.resource
#769: Move multiproduct changes to resource module from trac.resource to multiproduct.resource ---+--- Reporter: rjollos | Owner: rjollos Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Release 8 Component: multiproduct |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: ---+--- Changes (by rjollos): * milestone: = Release 8 Comment: Patch will posted to this ticket soon. -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/769#comment:2 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #770: Location of test cases for bloodhound_multiproduct is not consistent with other projects
#770: Location of test cases for bloodhound_multiproduct is not consistent with other projects ---+ Reporter: rjollos | Owner: nobody Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: multiproduct |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: ---+ Comment (by olemis): Well , the reasons are : 1. Having a single top-level tests module (as opposite to Trac's scattered test modules) is convenient considering the package test discovery code 2. For code with functional + unit tests (i.e. quite often) I prefer to write tests in a separate package hierarchy because : * they should not be installed in production deployments * they might be packaged and distributed independently should they be run against a given source tree to identify a certain issue , but then discarded * in practice there might be no need to import top-level source tree in order to import top-level test module and contained test code especially if writing functional tests - you'll need other dependencies instead e.g. [pypi:selenium] , [pypi:twill] , stdlid `xmlrpclib` ... - and even for unit tests the top-level source package may always be imported and resources located with the help of `pkg_resources` 3. other references * https://pytest.org/latest/goodpractises.html#choosing-a-test- layout-import-rules * http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5341006/where-should-i-put- tests-when-packaging-python-modules * http://stackoverflow.com/questions/61151/where-do-the-python-unit- tests-go -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/770#comment:3 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #770: Location of test cases for bloodhound_multiproduct is not consistent with other projects
#770: Location of test cases for bloodhound_multiproduct is not consistent with other projects ---+ Reporter: rjollos | Owner: nobody Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: multiproduct |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: ---+ Comment (by olemis): Replying to [comment:2 rjollos]: Do you have a reason other than just personal preference? Trac has already chosen to locate tests in a `tests` subdirectory of the module. I really do not recommend doing this . In general, it is logical to maintain consistency with Trac on things like this (and code style issue), I do not think that's a good reference to follow unless there is a solid argument to go a different direction, and the argument can cite significant advantages. ... considering the facts in comment:3 -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/770#comment:4 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #769: Move multiproduct changes to resource module from trac.resource to multiproduct.resource
#769: Move multiproduct changes to resource module from trac.resource to multiproduct.resource ---+--- Reporter: rjollos | Owner: rjollos Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Release 8 Component: multiproduct |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: ---+--- Comment (by olemis): Ok , jfyi , once upon a time I tried to do so , but noticed that there are many imports hard-coded all over Trac source code . Therefore the replacement techniques used for environments were not as easy to reproduce in this case , thus leaving dangling references to the old resource classes (e.g. lacking on neighborhood support) instead of the new ones . That's why I did not separate them since the beginning . This is an important aspect to consider . The goal of this ticket is convenient , that's sure , so I look forward to review the patch once it will be available . -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/769#comment:3 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #570: Bootstrap template for product_edit.html
#570: Bootstrap template for product_edit.html --+-- Reporter: rjollos | Owner: nobody Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major| Milestone: next 0.x Component: ui design|Version: Resolution: | Keywords: starter --+-- Changes (by olemis): * component: dashboard = ui design -- Ticket URL: https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/570#comment:4 Apache Bloodhound https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ The Apache Bloodhound issue tracker
