AUR web interface

**This is the bug tracker for the AUR web interface.**

Use this tracker to report bugs or make feature requests regarding the behaviour or implementation of the AUR software.
Please read the Reporting Bug Guidelines before filing a new task.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

- Please report bugs related to Arch Linux official packages here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=1
- Please report bugs for [community] packages here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=5
- For any packages in the AUR contact the maintainer or leave a comment on the package's detail page.

Source Code:
https://projects.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/
Tasklist

FS#71427 - (aurweb 5.0.0) Users can't see their own comments on a package if they own said package

Attached to Project: AUR web interface
Opened by Hunter Wittenborn (hwittenborn) - Sunday, 04 July 2021, 00:22 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Backend
Status Unconfirmed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 4.7.0
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

I'm using aurweb from the 5.0.0 branch (not the 'live' one), and attempting to view one's comments on package pages causes the webpage to be completely cut off right at their name above the comment, with everything below it just being not shown.

After comparing the differences between the 5.0.0 branch and the live one, the following fix in the live branch solved my issue (the second one is the corrected version):

< $q.= "AND DelTS IS NULL";
---
> $q.= "AND DelTS IS NULL ";


So it looked like the issue was fixed, but the latest release of aurweb hasn't incorporated those changes[1].

This caused me to be looking for a fix for quite a while (about a week or so), until I eventually went to the live branch a bit ago (I was assuming that was being used for aur.archlinux.org), and then I compared the two, and found the fix.

Is there any reason the changes haven't been backported to the 5.0.0 release, or at least a point release based on it? I'd ideally like to not have to use the live branch, as my instance makes some modifications that require me to check things before upgrading, and using numbered releases allows me to more easily see when I need to upgrade everything.

I'm also facing a couple other issues, but I need to compare everything else to make sure those issues weren't just caused by modifications I made.

[1]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/aurweb/-/blob/v5.0.0/web/lib/pkgbasefuncs.inc.php#L23-25
This task depends upon

Comment by Hunter Wittenborn (hwittenborn) - Sunday, 04 July 2021, 00:30 GMT
The image link below shows what it previously looked like.

It would literally cut off at this point, with nothing below it, footer or anything.

https://nextcloud.hunterwittenborn.com/s/giNa4MTTDx7XgHx
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Sunday, 04 July 2021, 03:39 GMT
It's available on the master branch, which is the canonical source: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/aurweb/-/commit/d92dd69aa3c23acc7e2e409decf42c3b3e37749c

I agree it would be good to have a release soonish, but that is a release management topic, not a "Users can't see their own comments on a package if they own said package" topic...


(Actually we have just reached a somewhat nice milestone stage of completely dropping jquery everywhere, so I guess now might be a good time for it.)
Comment by Hunter Wittenborn (hwittenborn) - Sunday, 04 July 2021, 05:37 GMT
Yeah, that's what I was seeing on my end, it's fixed in newer versions, just not on any numbered ones.

On the note of releases then, and I don't know how feasible/reasonable it would be, but would it be possible to create a new release any time new changes are pushed to the `live` branch?

I wouldn't need a complete new branch for each release or anything, just an archive I could download from and then plop over the old version.

Just something so that I can:
1. (as stated before) see when I need to upgrade, and,
2. know that I am indeed using a version that is bug-to-bug compatible with the one running in production.
Comment by Hunter Wittenborn (hwittenborn) - Sunday, 04 July 2021, 05:41 GMT
My bad, looks like I confused tags with branches.

Regardless, if you were to do something like that, whatever would be easiest on your end would work for me.

Loading...