The "fsck.com-rt-" URI scheme

Will this URI scheme thing be continued in later versions of RT? I
remember JV saying that it probably wouldn’t. I’m wondering if it’s
worth bothering with generating patches to get rid of the hard-coded
"fsck.com-rt-" scheme because I need to use a lot of REST calls making
links etc. and every ticket like comes out as “fsck.com-rt-” …

PK

Philip Kime
NOPS Systems Architect
310 401 0407

Will this URI scheme thing be continued in later versions of RT? I
remember JV saying that it probably wouldn’t.

When did I say this?

You may well not have done … I just remembered something about
wanting to take it away but not wanting to break too much stuff …?

PK-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Vincent [mailto:jesse@bestpractical.com]
Sent: 11 June 2006 13:59
To: Philip Kime
Cc: RT users
Subject: Re: [rt-users] The “fsck.com-rt-” URI scheme

On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 01:56:12PM -0700, Philip Kime wrote:

Will this URI scheme thing be continued in later versions of RT? I
remember JV saying that it probably wouldn’t.

When did I say this?

All tickets should have fsck.com-rt schemes. Why would that be
a problem?

-ToddOn Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 01:56:12PM -0700, Philip Kime wrote:

Will this URI scheme thing be continued in later versions of RT? I
remember JV saying that it probably wouldn’t. I’m wondering if it’s
worth bothering with generating patches to get rid of the hard-coded
"fsck.com-rt-" scheme because I need to use a lot of REST calls making
links etc. and every ticket like comes out as “fsck.com-rt-” …

PK


Philip Kime
NOPS Systems Architect
310 401 0407


http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

We’re hiring! Come hack Perl for Best Practical: http://bestpractical.com/about/jobs.html

I was more wondering how hard it would be to just default them to an
"rt" scheme since it would seem to make more sense for people who have
nothing to do with the fsck.com domain. Even RT has nothing to do with
the fsck.com domain now since I believe it was the author’s personal
domain when it was first being developed.

The at scheme is just “at”, it would be nice for rt to be just "rt"
unless you really want a scheme prefix of something else which could be
a config file setting.

As an exercise, I created an “rt” scheme and altered Record.pm,
Ticket_Overlay.pm and URI.pm but in 3.6 REST interface, the links still
come out as fsck.com-rt so I’ve either missed something or something’s
in the DB.

PKFrom: Todd Chapman [mailto:todd@chaka.net]
Sent: 11 June 2006 15:47
To: Philip Kime
Cc: RT users
Subject: Re: [rt-users] The “fsck.com-rt-” URI scheme

All tickets should have fsck.com-rt schemes. Why would that be a
problem?

-Todd

What is this URI used for in RT? How does RT use it?

Philip Kime wrote:

Well I think it’s supposed to allow you to have custom URI schemes so
that you could, for example, have custom resolver code for a certain
scheme that might even pull in data from external sources or do special
things to certain Tickets etc. the default scheme for tickets results in
URIs like this

fsck.com-rt://$RT::Organization/ticket/

It’s the “fsck.com-rt” part which is hard-coded in as the default. If
you look in the DB table “Links”, you’ll see. I think that this scheme
thing is very nice idea but I would have thought that the default would
be better left at just “rt” so URIs would default to:

rt://$RT::Organization/ticket/

But as JV has said - it might well break things for people to change
this. I have played around a little and have worked out how to change
the default without, so far, breaking anything as there are two ways of
approaching this:

  • Create an “rt” scheme and make this the default for all new tickets.
    This doesn’t seem to break anything since the “fsck.com-rt” scheme is
    still there, just not the default any more.
  • Create an “rt” scheme and go through the Links table in the DB and
    change all “fsck.com-rt” scheme links to “rt”. Then remove the
    "fsck.com-rt" scheme. This would be tidier and I suspect it wouldn’t
    break anything either.

The issue would be, do you have any code/modifications which depend on
"fsck.com-rt" being the default? I don’t so I may move to an “rt” scheme
wholesale.

The patches to do this are simple and I can post them if there is any
interest.

PKFrom: Jason Fenner [mailto:jfenner@vitamix.com]
Sent: 12 June 2006 13:35
To: Philip Kime
Cc: Todd Chapman; RT users
Subject: Re: [rt-users] The “fsck.com-rt-” URI scheme

What is this URI used for in RT? How does RT use it?

Philip Kime wrote:

I was more wondering how hard it would be to just default them to an
"rt" scheme since it would seem to make more sense for people who have

nothing to do with the fsck.com domain. Even RT has nothing to do with

the fsck.com domain now since I believe it was the author’s personal
domain when it was first being developed.

The at scheme is just “at”, it would be nice for rt to be just "rt"
unless you really want a scheme prefix of something else which could
be a config file setting.

As an exercise, I created an “rt” scheme and altered Record.pm,
Ticket_Overlay.pm and URI.pm but in 3.6 REST interface, the links
still come out as fsck.com-rt so I’ve either missed something or
something’s in the DB.

PK

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Chapman [mailto:todd@chaka.net]
Sent: 11 June 2006 15:47
To: Philip Kime
Cc: RT users
Subject: Re: [rt-users] The “fsck.com-rt-” URI scheme

All tickets should have fsck.com-rt schemes. Why would that be a
problem?

-Todd

Will this URI scheme thing be continued in later versions of RT? I
remember JV saying that it probably wouldn’t. I’m wondering if it’s
worth bothering with generating patches to get rid of the hard-coded
"fsck.com-rt-" scheme because I need to use a lot of REST calls
making

links etc. and every ticket like comes out as “fsck.com-rt-” …

PK


Philip Kime
NOPS Systems Architect
310 401 0407


http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support:
sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

We’re hiring! Come hack Perl for Best Practical:
http://bestpractical.com/about/jobs.html


http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support:
sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

We’re hiring! Come hack Perl for Best Practical:
http://bestpractical.com/about/jobs.html

It’s the “fsck.com-rt” part which is hard-coded in as the default. If
you look in the DB table “Links”, you’ll see. I think that this scheme
thing is very nice idea but I would have thought that the default would
be better left at just “rt” so URIs would default to:

If you can get IANA to allocate Best Bractical the “rt:” URI scheme,
I’ll switch. :wink:

Best,
Jesse

Seriously, though, have you tried? There are less interesting things on
the list than rt://

http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html

You could always push it as a general URI-enabled app bug reporting URI
scheme that resolves to a ticket in some ticketing system. What
ticketing system has no concept of a Ticket ID or number?

PK-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Vincent [mailto:jesse@bestpractical.com]
Sent: 12 June 2006 14:56
To: Philip Kime
Cc: Jason Fenner; RT users
Subject: Re: [rt-users] The “fsck.com-rt-” URI scheme

It’s the “fsck.com-rt” part which is hard-coded in as the default. If
you look in the DB table “Links”, you’ll see. I think that this scheme

thing is very nice idea but I would have thought that the default
would be better left at just “rt” so URIs would default to:

If you can get IANA to allocate Best Bractical the “rt:” URI scheme,
I’ll switch. :wink:

Best,
Jesse