View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0021996 | mantisbt | api soap | public | 2016-11-30 13:54 | 2019-02-06 15:30 |
Reporter | rquintana | Assigned To | |||
Priority | high | Severity | major | Reproducibility | always |
Status | feedback | Resolution | open | ||
Summary | 0021996: Service mc_project_get_issues not return closed issues | ||||
Description | //referencia a webservice mantis In c# mc_project_get_issues do not return closed issues, only issues thar not closed. Thanks. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
@rombert this should work according 0010969, but it seems you have to set $g_hide_status_default = META_FILTER_NONE; for it 0016889:0039227 I would expect that the test fail. |
|
Got email from rombert, he will check next week |
|
For the record, here is the (confirmed) reason the unit test fails 0022001 |
|
This behavior is confirmed in both 1.3.x and master branches. See PR https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/965 for the fix of the unit test |
|
I think the current behaviour should stay as it is, since it's been long done this way and we risk breaking existing integrations. There are at least two ways of retrieving all issues:
Using the mc_filter_search_issues SOAP API call might also work, but I did not check it. @rquintana, would that work for you? |
|
@rombert, thanks for the feedback. I agree we should be careful not to break existing applications relying on a behavior of the API. That being said, the current behavior of mc_project_get_issues() is somewhat confusing, as one's expectation is that it would indeed retrieve all issues (it was apparently also the case for you, since you initially wrote the test script along these lines). If the decision is the status quo, I would propose that
With regards to amending the test script as per your comment [1]
To achieve that, would you recommend that the test takes $g_hide_status_default into consideration ? Or that we just drop the testGetProjectClosedIssues case entirely ? [1] https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/965#issuecomment-264668132 |
|
ping @rombert for
|
|
Thanks for the ping @atrol and sorry for the delay. I had a quick conversation with @dregad about this and here's my take in on the situation
|
|