issues without Component

[Fernando Serboncini]

Hey folks,

I was looking into our "Task 3" on blink rotation, and noticed that we have +3000 bugs on that query.

A lot of those are bugs already assigned to people, so it's not a big deal, but we still seem to have 566 Untriaged bugs and 308 Unconfirmed ones. Some of those are security bugs, but I think those are reached by a type (Bug-Security) query.

I couldn't make a query for those bugs without owner (how do you query "no owner"?) but I feel like we should deal better with "no owner and no component" bugs. 

I don't have a strong opinion on how to solve this. But my suggestion is:

We update Task 3 to only show un-owned bugs. 

If that's not possible, split it into two queries for Untriaged and Unconfirmed, ignoring the rest. 

And then we try to chip off those lists during normal rotation (maybe try to do 10 of those per day) and reduce the number to something a bit more manageable.

I've also noticed that a lot of automatically generated bugs (security, audit, crash report) are coming without components. Maybe we should loop back those tools to address that too.

What do people think?

F.

[Dave Tapuska]

You want -has:owner -has:component

I generally try to look at this query each day. It captures bugs reported by external accounts (some still come from a googleservice account) that don't have a component or an owner.

dave.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Component:Blink bug rotation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crblink-rotati...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/crblink-rotation/CADp2-T9mTDz-dYurnFejEa5zVH_uZ1UrGMWC9Nehih%3DrxR7mnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fernando Serboncini]

Ahn "-has:owner"! What a time to be alive. :)

And the size is 800 ish bugs, which kinda maps to the Untriaged + Unconfirmed.

I think we should change Task 3 to include that and drop it from 3000 to 800 bugs, which we can slowly shave off. 

I can do that if everyone is ok with it.

[TAMURA, Kent]

IMO, handling issues with owners and no components is worth because owners might be inactive accounts and the component field affects statistics. Also, handling issues without owners may have higher priority.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/crblink-rotation/CADp2-T-A6tk614eo4Lzdjb39rojp%2BuAnETePif0GdQd-6dDjMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

TAMURA Kent
Software Engineer, Google

[Fernando Serboncini]

Fair. Just dropping them was a bad idea.

I still think we need to split the 3k bug queue into smaller tackleable problems. 

We could split the task either by:

1. split into: no comp no owner, no comp active owner, no comp inactive owner 

 or

2. split into recent/old bugs with no components. And make recent list mandatory.

Either way:

We should add a crbug warnings for bugs with owners, active status and no components. I'll add a Monorail request.

[TAMURA, Kent]

It sounds like a good idea.

I think we may have multiple ways to handle no-component issues.

Can you add them with example queries to the page?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/crblink-rotation/CADp2-T_TAznksk7JGz16P3J8_N_7eQ%2Bo0qeDaY-BsUO0vZu8OA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fernando Serboncini]

I've updated task 3 with:

• Bugs created in the last 30 days without owners
• Bugs that have owners but that haven't been modified in the last year
• All bugs without owners
• All bugs

I've also created a Monorail bug: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/monorail/issues/detail?id=6328 for the warning.