Mantis to Launchpad :: Asking for a staging import

I've made the file available from Dropbox, since we are in process of migrating and decommissioning the current http/ftp services.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x6851jv5kn620ir/-K9f2XSLBW/tmp/jquantlib-issues-ALL.transformed.xml.tar.bz2

Hi,

I've gotten your XML file imported to our qastaging instance -- we have two stagings, and it's currently the most up to date. I've reconfigured the project on qastaging such that it knows bugs are to be filed in Launchpad. We have imported 540 bugs, with 21 duplicates. Can you have a careful look through https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/jquantlib/ and let me know if there any issues, or if you're happy to proceed?

Hello Steve,

Thanks a lot for your prompt response.

I see that I'm populating issue descriptions with the same content which populates issue titles, which is not quite right. Could you please load another .xml file from the location below?

      https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x6851jv5kn620ir/-K9f2XSLBW/tmp/jquantlib-issues-ALL.transformed_20130801_140051.xml.tar.bz2

----

I've also observed some strange things in the issue ...

           https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/jquantlib/+bug/1204658

... which presents (in this order):

1. comment #0: is rendered as link "original description", not expanded in a box of text, like other comments.
2. comment #2: Attachment
3. comment #3: Notes
4. comment #4: ( no title ? )
5. comment #1: Additional Information

I have these concerns:

a) Why comment #0 is presented as link "original description" ? I'd like to see comment #0 rendered in a text box, like any other comment. What do you suggest? For more information, please see line 1652 of the .xml file you previously loaded.

b) Why comments are not presented in ascending order in this particular issue? I see that in general comments are presented in the correct order in other issues, though. Is there something I could adjust in the .xml file in order to avoid comments presented in the wrong order?

c) Comment #4 has no title, but the original .xml file specifies a title for it. Any clues? For more information, please have a look at line 1692 of the .xml file you previously loaded.

Again, thanks a lot Steve for your help! :)

> I have these concerns:
>
> a) Why comment #0 is presented as link "original description" ? I'd like to see comment #0 rendered in a text box, like any other comment. What do you suggest? For more information, please see line 1652 of the .xml file you previously loaded.

Comment 0 for a bug is the 'original description', it is what was filled out by the reporter as the issue, the next comments are the dialogue that happens on the bug report.

> b) Why comments are not presented in ascending order in this particular issue? I see that in general comments are presented in the correct order in other issues, though. Is there something I could adjust in the .xml file in order to avoid comments presented in the wrong order?

This particular issue is due to the date field, since bug reports are shown ordered by date -- comments 2 through 4 are between 2008-12-19 and 2009-01-26, and comment 1 is 2010-10-14.

> c) Comment #4 has no title, but the original .xml file specifies a title for it. Any clues? For more information, please have a look at line 1692 of the .xml file you previously loaded.

I see that, based on the XML file. I will have to investigate.

> Comment 0 for a bug is the 'original description', it is what was filled out by the
> reporter as the issue, the next comments are the dialogue that happens on the
> bug report.

You mean to say that comment #0 and description are the same or should be same conceptually?

> This particular issue is due to the date field, since bug reports are shown ordered by
> date -- comments 2 through 4 are between 2008-12-19 and 2009-01-26, and
> comment 1 is 2010-10-14.

I have to review this. Please let me fix this first before importing the .xml file again.

Thanks a lot :)

> You mean to say that comment #0 and description are the same or should be same conceptually?

Comment 0 and the description of the bug report are the same -- the description of the problem in our model is comment 0.

> I have to review this. Please let me fix this first before importing the .xml file again.

Sure. I'll set this question to Needs Information, when you reply it will snap back to Open.

Hi Steve,

Could you please import the .xml file below?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x6851jv5kn620ir/-K9f2XSLBW/tmp/jquantlib-issues-ALL.transformed_20130805_002113.xml.tar.bz2

In regards te issue below:

> c) Comment #4 has no title, but the original .xml file specifies a title for it.
> Any clues? For more information, please have a look at line 1692 of the
> .xml file you previously loaded.

I've simply removed the title from all comments which came from "Notes" in the Mantis parlance.

So, if I've assigned sensible timestamps this time, I hope this import will be final.

Cheers :)

> Could you please import the .xml file below?

I'd be happy too, if it didn't 404. :-)

Hi Steve

Sorry ... this one should work:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0niroysmz449yhq/jquantlib-issues-ALL.transformed_20130805_002113.xml.tar.bz2

You may also be interested on this: http://mantis2xml.readthedocs.org

Thanks a lot :)

-- Richard

The new import has been run on staging -- the reason for this is the new bugs have nicknames, which must be unique per instance, so I've made use of staging for this -- https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/jqauntlib/ has the list. The bug numbers will be different from qastaging and staging, so if you'd like to map them, https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/jquantlib/+bug/1204658 has under the title the nick of 'jquantlib-34', so https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/bugs/jquantlib-34 redirects to https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/jquantlib/+bug/1088047

Please let know if there are any further problems or issues.

Hi Steve,

Regarding nicknames: This gave me the oppportunity to address an important thing which was missing, which was "relationships between issues". This feature is available in Mantis but not in Launchpad Bugs.

So, I've basically populated 'description' and 'comment #0' with relationship information in the end of the description, in case relationships do exist for a specific issue.

Also, I moved "Additional Information" and "Steps to Reproduce" into 'description' and 'comment #0'. This way, the trouble regarding the order of comments will be definitely solved.

Could you please load it again? It's here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8mieusvc2pvk0v/issues.launchpad.xml_20130805-1150.tar.bz2

Thanks a lot.

I have imported the new XML file into a new project on qastaging -- called jquantlib2. I have also had to change the nicknames for the bugs, they are now jquantlib2-<id>, since bug nicknames must be unique. They will be 'jquantlib' for the final import into production, of course. https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/jquantlib2 looks good to me, can you check it over?

Hello Steve,

Yes, the import looks good to me.
It's ready for production. :)

If more users need to go thru this migration, please feel free to direct them to
    https://mantis2xml.readthedocs.org

Thanks

The bug import has completed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/jquantlib

Enjoy!

Hi Steve,

Looks superb.
Nicknames work fine, which means that relationships between issues have been kept from Mantis.

Thanks a lot ;)

-- Richard