[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About querying bugs via LDAP



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



Hi Don again,

Don Armstrong wrote:
...
> It's currently not possible to do a search like this (though this
> information is something that the bug tracking system uses itself to
> update its own set of indices.)


I guess the data field is accesible somewhere (on server side). Even though LDAP
bug record doesn't reflect this data, SOAP's query results returns
'log_modified' => '1188589143', for intance.

Is there any other access method to the bugs datasource(s) (apart from LDAP and
SOAP API (the only two I know at this moment) I should know about?.

I believe if the data is there, there is (or should be) a way to query it... or
am I wrong about this?.

Please, can you enlight me a bit more about the different available methods to
query BTS I can use to get the fields I need?


> I'd actually be more interesting in making remote databases less
> necessary than allowing this type of query (at least, alone; it would
> be valid to, given a list of bugs (or a query which returned one),
> only return those bugs which were modified after a specific time.)


Maybe I'm wrong again, but I consider that remote databases are necessary
nowadays to be able to join different data sources as BTS, DebTags, Popcon,
etc... and have a unique source able to return all the available data by a
single query event.

I'm learning a lot with your answers.
Thanks again.

Cheers.

- --
________________________________________________________________________
 Dario Minnucci (a.k.a. midget)
 Phone: (+34) 902021030 | Fax: (+34) 902024417 | 24/7: (+34) 807429057
 Email: debian@midworld.net | URL: http://www.midworld.net/midget/
 Key fingerprint = 6DDB 5487 7F6D 89D4 5D9C  33C7 D181 DD7A 6C42 8272


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG2LQH0YHdemxCgnIRAsowAJ9PjRggK13VuxlzCx6YSAjGZkeekgCcD6UY
Nx7VNmBnOMqZulNmQQvWzJY=
=bxEB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: