Bug reports with the 5.2 Master branch

Development Beta Testing
1

Where do you want to start bug reports not related to a specific merge? Should we start in MantisBT? Or will there be a comment area on GitHub?

GRAMPS: 5.2.0-b5e88c13f
Python: 3.11.4 (main, Jun 7 2023, 00:00:00) [GC…
BSDDB: 6.2.9 (5, 3, 28)
sqlite: 3.40.0 (2.6.0)
LANG: en_US.UTF-8
OS: Linux
Distribution: 6.3.12-100.fc37.x86_64

Exporting to an XML with image created a compressed file that can’t be read by Gramps 5.2beta (after decompressing, the extracted data.gramps could be imported. Also a Backup instead of a Export generated an importable file.)
image

2

Is there a list of items that still have to be reviewed before the beta?

I’ve been looking for a few PRs and haven’t seen them in the alpha.

Example, this enhancment isn’t marked as targeted for 5.2 in MantisBT:
0011813: [Preferences > Family Tree > Autobackup:] Add extended interval choices to automated backup

pr 1096

3

There is now a 5.2.0-beta1 option in the bug tracker.

1 Like
4

Could you create a BetaTest subsection in the Development category of Discourse?

I can consolidate the posts there.

5

As you can see from the link, the commit message makes no reference to the interval changes or to bug #11813. This makes it highly unlikely that the change will be listed in the ChangeLog, NEWS or any release announcement.

Good commit messages are important for this reason.

It appears that the new interval options were accidentally removed in commit 84da4b8. I’ll fix the problem.
‘Missing Backup Intervals options’ Fixed in PR#1489

1 Like
6

Thanks. That example was easy to spot because it was GUI rather than a function that need tests run.

I was working on the MantisBT list of 166 reports that were “Fixed” without a “Target” or “Fixed in” version. It is a slow slog.

First thing noticed: it looks like some of the fixes were committed to a “dev” branch instead of the “master”??? Could that be why some of the items didn’t get to the 5.2beta approval queue?

7

I cannot reproduce this. I need more information.

8

We don’t have a “dev” branch.

All pull requests were considered for inclusion into v5.2.0. There were 26 that didn’t make it.

Some were submitted late such as #1481 and #1483. There has to be a cut-off point.

Others were partially merged such as #1428 and #1444.

There were some that still looked incomplete and needed more work such as #1297 and #1431.

1 Like
9

Yes, that’s why the PR that said that it was merged to something with that label sticks in my mind. Will come back to that one when I catch up on some of the other stuff.

10

Maybe that notation meant it was applied to their Gramps clone in the assigned developer’s personal GitHub space?

11

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.