Redmine improvements #395

kostajh · 2016-10-12T19:48:06Z

This PR is for #390. I'm posting this now in case someone wants to carry on, I'm going to be mostly offline for the next few weeks. (If you do work on this please post here so we're not working to cross purposes!)

Still TODO:

Load comments as annotations
Support for custom fields
Pagination support for more than 100 records?
Fix tests

Everything here is working for me, btw.

ryneeverett · 2016-10-13T00:06:06Z

I rebased. I'm a little horrified that this new github feature encourages this kind of thing though. Anyone with commit access can anonymously screw with PR's and the modifications are unlikely to be detected if they're careful. In other words, you can no longer count on the submitter to have reviewed their own PR!

kostajh · 2017-01-03T14:07:41Z

@ryneeverett this all works, but I could use help figuring out what to do with the tests. Also, is it best practice to map the Redmine due date directly to a TW due date? I'm not sure the other services do this.

ryneeverett · 2017-01-05T01:31:47Z

bugwarrior/services/redmine.py

+        if issue_limit is not None:
+            args["limit"] = issue_limit
+
+        args["assigned_to_id"] = 'me'


Did you mean to leave this this way?

Yes, but, should it be conditional based on whether the user has selected only_if_assigned = True in their config?

Ah, I hadn't realized that "me" is a special value in the redmine API.

Yes, but, should it be conditional based on whether the user has selected only_if_assigned = True in their config?

Yes, I believe that's correct.

ryneeverett · 2017-01-07T03:25:47Z

Reactions in no particular order:

Do we know why redmine's time zones are different than other services? In the tests, the other services return a datetime with a pytz.UTC timezone while redmine returns a datetime with a dateutil.tz.tz.tzutc(). This may well be an inconsistency in the way I wrote the tests, but it is curious.
The UDA ASSIGNED_TO appears to be equivalent to gitlab's ASSIGNEE and bz's ASSIGNED. Would it make sense to standardize? I'd be inclined towards ASSIGNEE.
The following UDA's appear to be completely unique across services:

TRACKER
CATEGORY
START_DATE
SPENT_HOURS
ESTIMATED_HOURS

I haven't developed an opinion on their merits, but this may be worth considering and soliciting feedback on.

kostajh · 2017-01-08T14:53:48Z

@ryneeverett thank you for fixing the tests!

Do we know why redmine's time zones are different than other services? In the tests, the other services return a datetime with a pytz.UTC timezone while redmine returns a datetime with a dateutil.tz.tz.tzutc(). This may well be an inconsistency in the way I wrote the tests, but it is curious.

I'm not sure about this, sorry. I do know that what's in redmine.py in this PR works for keeping the dates consistent after running bugwarrior-pull, when I first started working on this PR, Taskwarrior thought that the date field was changing across each sync and would update each task on every pull.

The UDA ASSIGNED_TO appears to be equivalent to gitlab's ASSIGNEE and bz's ASSIGNED. Would it make sense to standardize? I'd be inclined towards ASSIGNEE.

Up to you. assigned_to and assigned are how these fields are defined in Redmine, so IMO it makes sense to keep the same format for this service, but I don't have a strong feeling about it one way or the other.

The following UDA's appear to be completely unique across services

Same as above, these are core fields provided by Redmine for issues. I use all of them in my Taskwarrior reports, so I'd like to keep them :)

A related point, in Redmine one can have custom fields. I'm not sure if it's within scope to allow a user to define custom fields to pull from or how we could achieve these in .bugwarriorrc. But if there is a solution for custom fields, then I could use that for ESTIMATED_HOURS and SPENT_HOURS, etc.

self.issue_limit = issue_limit - def find_issues(self, issue_limit=100): + def find_issues(self, issue_limit=100, only_if_assigned=False): args = {} # TODO: if issue_limit is greater than 100, implement pagination to return all issues. # Leave the implementation of this to the unlucky soul with >100 issues assigned to them. if issue_limit is not None: args["limit"] = issue_limit - args["assigned_to_id"] = 'me' + if only_if_assigned: + args["assigned_to_id"] = 'me' return self.call_api("/issues.json", args)["issues"] def call_api(self, uri, params): @@ -251,8 +252,8 @@ class RedMineService(IssueService): IssueService.validate_config(config, target) def issues(self): - - issues = self.client.find_issues(self.issue_limit) + only_if_assigned = self.config_get_default('only_if_assigned', False) + issues = self.client.find_issues(self.issue_limit, only_if_assigned=only_if_assigned) log.debug(" Found %i total.", len(issues)) for issue in issues: yield self.get_issue_for_record(issue) diff --git a/tests/test_redmine.py b/tests/test_redmine.py index 7ed8941..8b1fe64 100644 --- a/tests/test_redmine.py +++ b/tests/test_redmine.py @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ class TestRedmineIssue(AbstractServiceTest, ServiceTest): @responses.activate def test_issues(self): self.add_response( - 'https://something/issues.json?assigned_to_id=me&limit=100', + 'https://something/issues.json?limit=100', json={'issues': [self.arbitrary_issue]}) issue = next(self.service.issues())

ryneeverett · 2017-01-11T14:40:52Z

Also, is it best practice to map the Redmine due date directly to a TW due date?

No. See #385.

ryneeverett

The date format is the only remaining thing I see that still needs consideration.

ryneeverett · 2017-01-11T14:58:53Z

bugwarrior/services/redmine.py

+        calc = tw._execute('calc', estimated_hours)
+        return (
+            calc[0].rstrip()
+        )


None of the other services convert to taskwarrior format so I'm doubtful we should be here. You want to use the redmine duedate as your taskwarrior duedate though, and I'm not sure how, or if it's possible, to do this if the due dates are stored in integer format.

The estimated_hours field is different from due date. Estimated hours comes from Redmine in the format 2, 2.9, 3.25, etc. Here I am converting this integer value to a taskwarrior duration field.

Wow, I have no idea what I was thinking an hour ago.

kostajh · 2017-01-11T16:47:43Z

thanks very much for your help @ryneeverett! I'll follow up later with annotations support. Also, do you have any thoughts on how custom field support might best be implemented?

ryneeverett · 2017-01-11T17:43:15Z

I'll follow up later with annotations support.

In a separate PR? I think this one's big enough and pretty well ready to merge.

Also, do you have any thoughts on how custom field support might best be implemented?

I'm assuming you know about field templates. Can you be a bit more specific about what you're trying to do?

kostajh · 2017-01-11T17:46:40Z

In a separate PR? I think this one's big enough and pretty well ready to merge.

Yes in a separate PR.

I'm assuming you know about field templates. Can you be a bit more specific about what you're trying to do?

Sure. And this is also for a future PR. My redmine instance has custom fields on issues, for example we use a field called "GitHub Branch / PR" where one can paste in the URL to the relevant branch/PR on GitHub that relates to a particular Redmine issue.

This comes across in the issues.json like so:

      "custom_fields": [
        {
          "id": 12,
          "name": "GitHub Branch / PR",
          "value": "https://github.com/ralphbean/bugwarrior/pull/395"
        }
      ],

I'm not sure I see from the field templates how I could set up my configuration to write the value of this field to a new UDA.

ryneeverett · 2017-01-11T20:27:18Z

Gotcha, I wasn't sure what you meant by "fields". I would think the "custom fields" functionality you're talking about should be implemented as a new Common Service Configuration Option, right?

kostajh mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2016

redmine: import first 100 issues instead 25 #394

Merged

ryneeverett force-pushed the redmine-improvements branch from 91bbdee to 19fe8db Compare October 12, 2016 23:55

kostajh added 5 commits December 6, 2016 11:23

Support passing issue_limit in the config

efec9fc

Map due_date

fa6fe12

Add description field, convert ID to numeric

2fbc89c

Add more core fields

cd4eae1

Remove unneeded user_id, add Assigned To field

f033927

kostajh force-pushed the redmine-improvements branch from 19fe8db to f033927 Compare December 6, 2016 16:23

Kosta Harlan and others added 9 commits December 19, 2016 17:27

Better date/time handling for created, updated, due

ca03f8d

Adjust variable name for consistency

4783735

Add some TODOs

7968a93

More date handling fixes, use task calc for estimated hours

ab09296

Specify a more realistic limit in the docs

959f998

Also use task calc on spent_hours

b899e83

Make project name alphanumeric and lowercase

1581ed7

Work on tests

fc3693e

Improved formatting of project names

516961b

ryneeverett reviewed Jan 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

Update redmine tests.

69e6315

kostajh changed the title ~~[WIP] Redmine improvements~~ Redmine improvements Jan 8, 2017

ryneeverett force-pushed the redmine-improvements branch from e7b7d1c to c9e0722 Compare January 11, 2017 14:18

redmine: Create redmineduedate UDA.

7ba1725

ryneeverett reviewed Jan 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

ryneeverett approved these changes Jan 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

ryneeverett mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2017

Cut a new bugwarrior release (2.0.0) #339

Closed

ryneeverett merged commit 7ff491e into GothenburgBitFactory:develop Jan 29, 2017

ralphbean mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2017

Improved support for Redmine #390

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Redmine improvements #395

Redmine improvements #395

kostajh commented Oct 12, 2016 •

edited

Loading

ryneeverett commented Oct 13, 2016

kostajh commented Jan 3, 2017

ryneeverett Jan 5, 2017

kostajh Jan 7, 2017

ryneeverett Jan 7, 2017

ryneeverett Jan 7, 2017

ryneeverett commented Jan 7, 2017

kostajh commented Jan 8, 2017

ryneeverett commented Jan 11, 2017

ryneeverett left a comment

ryneeverett Jan 11, 2017

kostajh Jan 11, 2017

ryneeverett Jan 11, 2017

kostajh commented Jan 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ryneeverett commented Jan 11, 2017

kostajh commented Jan 11, 2017

ryneeverett commented Jan 11, 2017

Redmine improvements #395

Redmine improvements #395

Conversation

kostajh commented Oct 12, 2016 • edited Loading

ryneeverett commented Oct 13, 2016

kostajh commented Jan 3, 2017

ryneeverett Jan 5, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kostajh Jan 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ryneeverett Jan 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ryneeverett Jan 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ryneeverett commented Jan 7, 2017

kostajh commented Jan 8, 2017

ryneeverett commented Jan 11, 2017

ryneeverett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ryneeverett Jan 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kostajh Jan 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ryneeverett Jan 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kostajh commented Jan 11, 2017 • edited Loading

ryneeverett commented Jan 11, 2017

kostajh commented Jan 11, 2017

ryneeverett commented Jan 11, 2017

kostajh commented Oct 12, 2016 •

edited

Loading

kostajh commented Jan 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading