Code review comment for lp:~deryck/launchpad/edit-bug-ui-update-412971

Revision history for this message
Deryck Hodge (deryck) wrote :

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

= Summary =

This branch is my first attempt at mechanical conversions for 3.0 UI
updates for bugs templates. This works on bug-edit.pt, which will
rarely be hit with all the recent AJAX work. The idea was to do an
easy, low-visibility template to start, to understand some basics of the
updating process.

See bug 412971 for a good bit of discussion/mid-implementation notes as
I worked out what to do.

I think most of the comments there also get me pretty far along in UI
review. The only question I have remaining is minor. In the original
version the page heading was "Edit bug description" and I changed that
to "Edit bug information" since the page encompasses more fields than
description. Perhaps description is a better word or there is yet
another better term.

== Screenshots ==

Before:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30273670/edit-bug-page-before-changes.png

After:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30279936/edit-bug-using-generic-edit.png

== Tests ==

./bin/test -vv -t xx-bug-edit.txt

The test is currently broken, and I'm waiting on a fix to base layout by
Edwin to land before fixing the test. There may be other tests broken,
too, and I have the branch in ec2test for now to know for sure.

I'll amend the MP with a diff of test updates when done.

== Demo and Q/A ==

Add +edit to any bug page url and make sure the page works and looks
like it should.

= Launchpad lint =

Checking for conflicts. and issues in doctests and templates.
Running jslint, xmllint, pyflakes, and pylint.
Using normal rules.

Linting changed files:
  lib/lp/bugs/browser/bug.py
  lib/lp/bugs/browser/configure.zcml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqFZC4ACgkQ4glRK0DaE8hqKACePEtezQOZY461nq4jbK50LhO+
icwAn0n0s9+t0eF7ZAl9HI37znsigG+T
=d32Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

« Back to merge proposal