Ticket Image attach corruption

Thanks to whoever credit is due for the RT program. I have been looking
for a while for a bug tracking system I could convince my company to
use. I am now rolling out RT for our company and almost everyone I talk
to about it is excited to use it. I believe the main contributing
factor is the high integration with email. This allows me to place RT
inline with existing communication and support practices with minimal
retraining.

I have discovered the multiple image custom field option. After the
procedure for uploading the image completes and I click on the file name
I get RT Error Corrupted customfieldvalue URL. By Googling I have
discovered that the max filesize of an attachment is 512KB.
http://kb.mit.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4272898
However even when restricting my upload to images below this size the
same error occurs.

RT is installed on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS \n \l
RT was installed using the package manager following the instructions at
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Request%20Tracker

I did move the location of the mysql database to a data drive according
to these instructions V, but the system has been operating fine otherwise.
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-change-the-mysql-data-default-directory.html

A screenshot of the error is uploaded here
http://public.laserlinc.com/temp/Joshua/Screenshot-2.png

A screenshot of the ticket with the misbehaving tickets is found here
http://public.laserlinc.com/temp/Joshua/Screenshot.png

Thanks
~Joshua

Thanks to whoever credit is due for the RT program. I have been
looking for a while for a bug tracking system I could convince my
company to use. I am now rolling out RT for our company and almost
everyone I talk to about it is excited to use it. I believe the
main contributing factor is the high integration with email. This
allows me to place RT inline with existing communication and support
practices with minimal retraining.

I have discovered the multiple image custom field option. After the
procedure for uploading the image completes and I click on the file
name I get RT Error Corrupted customfieldvalue URL. By Googling I
have discovered that the max filesize of an attachment is 512KB.
http://kb.mit.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4272898
However even when restricting my upload to images below this size
the same error occurs.

Hi Joshua,

This is documentation for an MIT setup about their local limits.
You can set “MaxAttachmentSize” in your RT_SiteConfig.pm to whatever
size you need AND can support within your DB backend. We have ours
set to 10^7:

Set($MaxAttachmentSize , 10000000);

Obviously, the MIT setup has that set to 512KB instead.

Regards,
Ken

Thanks to whoever credit is due for the RT program. I have been
looking for a while for a bug tracking system I could convince my
company to use. I am now rolling out RT for our company and almost
everyone I talk to about it is excited to use it. I believe the
main contributing factor is the high integration with email. This
allows me to place RT inline with existing communication and support
practices with minimal retraining.

I have discovered the multiple image custom field option. After the
procedure for uploading the image completes and I click on the file
name I get RT Error Corrupted customfieldvalue URL. By Googling I
have discovered that the max filesize of an attachment is 512KB.
http://kb.mit.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4272898
However even when restricting my upload to images below this size
the same error occurs.

This is documentation for an MIT setup about their local limits.
You can set “MaxAttachmentSize” in your RT_SiteConfig.pm to whatever
size you need AND can support within your DB backend. We have ours
set to 10^7:

Set($MaxAttachmentSize , 10000000);

Obviously, the MIT setup has that set to 512KB instead.

Joshua - to expand on Ken’s comments, the documentation shipped with
your RT install and available to read and examine in
/opt/rt4/etc/RT_Config.pm is also available to read here:
http://bestpractical.com/rt/docs/latest/RT_Config.html#MaxAttachmentSize

-kevin

Set($MaxAttachmentSize , 10000000);
Thank you. It is now working. :slight_smile:
~Joshua

Thanks to whoever credit is due for the RT program. I have been looking
for a while for a bug tracking system I could convince my company to
use. I am now rolling out RT for our company and almost everyone I talk
to about it is excited to use it. I believe the main contributing
factor is the high integration with email. This allows me to place RT
inline with existing communication and support practices with minimal
retraining.

I have discovered the multiple image custom field option. After the
procedure for uploading the image completes and I click on the file name
I get RT Error Corrupted customfieldvalue URL. By Googling I have
discovered that the max filesize of an attachment is 512KB.
http://kb.mit.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4272898
However even when restricting my upload to images below this size the
same error occurs.

RT is installed on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS \n \l
RT was installed using the package manager following the instructions at
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Request%20Tracker

Hopefully you’re starting with the latest version of RT, 4.0.10, or at
least close to it in the 4.0 series. The Ubuntu wiki page you link to
is a bit outdated and installs the 3.8 series.

Thomas

Hopefully you’re starting with the latest version of RT, 4.0.10, or at
least close to it in the 4.0 series. The Ubuntu wiki page you link to
is a bit outdated and installs the 3.8 series.

Thomas

3.8.11

Hopefully you’re starting with the latest version of RT, 4.0.10, or at
least close to it in the 4.0 series. The Ubuntu wiki page you link to
is a bit outdated and installs the 3.8 series.

3.8.11

We highly recommend that any new installs of RT start out in the 4.0
series. The latest release is 4.0.10.

3.8 has been getting only security fixes and serious bug fixes for
well over a year now.

From: “Thomas Sibley” trs@bestpractical.com

We highly recommend that any new installs of RT start out in the 4.0
series. The latest release is 4.0.10.

3.8 has been getting only security fixes and serious bug fixes for
well over a year now.

Question: do you guys make a point, at all, of evangelizing to distro
maintainers and packagers that they package 4.x, or, more to the point
pull 3.x out of repos?

Cheers,
– jra
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

----- Original Message -----

From: “Thomas Sibley” trs@bestpractical.com

We highly recommend that any new installs of RT start out in the 4.0
series. The latest release is 4.0.10.

3.8 has been getting only security fixes and serious bug fixes for
well over a year now.

Question: do you guys make a point, at all, of evangelizing to distro
maintainers and packagers that they package 4.x, or, more to the point
pull 3.x out of repos?

We’ve pushed for 4.0 in the past with various distro maintainers. I
believe most popular distros have some sort of 4.0 package now, but
how up to date it is depends on the maintainer.

Our Debian maintainer (Dominic) is great, and the request-tracker4
package versions usually track pretty close to the latest release if you
use backports or “unstable”. Lags do occur, such as when Debian freezes
the package trees in advance of release.

Ubuntu gets all the RT packages from Debian, usually with some of it’s
own lag and quirks built-in. It’s “community maintained” which means no
one at Canonical is responsible for dealing with it (even for security!)
unless prodded in an approved (albeit documented) process.

I don’t think we’d advocate for pulling 3.8 packages entirely until it’s
officially EOL’d. Still, I believe there is an Ubuntu ticket in
Launchpad about pulling 3.8 from the next distro version they release
(opened by someone from the RT community).

Thomas

Question: do you guys make a point, at all, of evangelizing to distro
maintainers and packagers that they package 4.x, or, more to the point
pull 3.xout of repos?

I checked and there are separate packages for rt4. I understand leaving
the 3.8 around as not to surprise folks when they do a system upgrade.
It would have been nice if they had updated their wiki though. Quite a
bummer as I just went live. I am going to try and set up a duplicate
system on a virtual machine to test upgrade to 4.0. Thanks for pointing
this out. I will be following this guide:

From: “Thomas Sibley” trs@bestpractical.com

We’ve pushed for 4.0 in the past with various distro maintainers. I
believe most popular distros have some sort of 4.0 package now, but
how up to date it is depends on the maintainer.

Our Debian maintainer (Dominic) is great, and the request-tracker4
package versions usually track pretty close to the latest release if
you use backports or “unstable”. Lags do occur, such as when Debian
freezes the package trees in advance of release.

Ubuntu gets all the RT packages from Debian, usually with some of it’s
own lag and quirks built-in. It’s “community maintained” which means
no one at Canonical is responsible for dealing with it (even for
security!) unless prodded in an approved (albeit documented) process.

I don’t think we’d advocate for pulling 3.8 packages entirely until
it’s officially EOL’d. Still, I believe there is an Ubuntu ticket in
Launchpad about pulling 3.8 from the next distro version they release
(opened by someone from the RT community).

Perhaps, at the very least, doing one final release that says "DEPRECIATED"
somewhere, in large, friendly letters?

As a field report, BTW: SuSE 12.1 has no packages at all, even in Packman,
and CentOS5 has only rt3 (of unknown release), even with epel and remi.

Alas, though those are my 2 target OSs, I’m not sufficiently adept at this
point with either RT or packaging to volunteer.

Cheers,
– jra
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

From: “Joshua Lansford” Joshua.Lansford@laserlinc.com

Question: do you guys make a point, at all, of evangelizing to
distro
maintainers and packagers that they package 4.x, or, more to the
point
pull 3.xout of repos?

I checked and there are separate packages for rt4. I understand leaving
the 3.8 around as not to surprise folks when they do a system upgrade.

Yeah.

It would have been nice if they had updated their wiki though. Quite a
bummer as I just went live. I am going to try and set up a duplicate
system on a virtual machine to test upgrade to 4.0. Thanks for
pointing this out. I will be following this guide:
http://blog.bestpractical.com/2011/07/upgrading-to-rt-4.html

About the wiki, it’s largely me you’re complaining about, so you got
the right guy: I did a large bolus of rework on it around 3.8 release
time, and have not been using rt-due to job changes-since, so I haven’t
gotten around to reworking it again for 4.x.

If I get a full-time $DAYJOB I’m in the running for right now, that will
likely change, as I’ll be rolling out 4.0 for there, and updating/merging
the current doco to the wiki.

Cheers,
– jra
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

As a field report, BTW: SuSE 12.1 has no packages at all, even in Packman,
and CentOS5 has only rt3 (of unknown release), even with epel and remi.

Fedora is making slow progress at packaging rt4, but it is in the wings:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665096

  • Alex

As a field report, BTW: SuSE 12.1 has no packages at all, even in Packman,
and CentOS5 has only rt3 (of unknown release), even with epel and remi.

I’m the request-tracker package maintainer for OpenSUSE and there are
current packages, rt-4.0.10, available for OpenSUSE 11.4, 12,1 and
12.2 in the devel:languages:perl repositories. You can search all the
SuSE repositories at http://software.opensuse.org/search to find it or
use the below repo links.

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel:/languages:/perl/openSUSE_11.4/
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel:/languages:/perl/openSUSE_12.1/
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel:/languages:/perl/openSUSE_12.2/

Later,
Darin

Question: do you guys make a point, at all, of evangelizing to distro
maintainers and packagers that they package 4.x, or, more to the point
pull 3.xout of repos?

I checked and there are separate packages for rt4. I understand
leaving the 3.8 around as not to surprise folks when they do a
system upgrade.

That wasn’t the reason 12.04 LTS released with RT3.8, it was just
because noone thought to remove it/suggest its removal early enough:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/request-tracker3.8/+bug/990516

It would have been nice if they had updated their
wiki though.

Which wiki, OOI?

Quite a bummer as I just went live. I am going to try
and set up a duplicate system on a virtual machine to test upgrade
to 4.0. Thanks for pointing this out. I will be following this
guide:
http://blog.bestpractical.com/2011/07/upgrading-to-rt-4.html

Dominic Hargreaves, Systems Development and Support Section
IT Services, University of Oxford

signature.asc (198 Bytes)

I don’t think we’d advocate for pulling 3.8 packages entirely until it’s
officially EOL’d. Still, I believe there is an Ubuntu ticket in
Launchpad about pulling 3.8 from the next distro version they release
(opened by someone from the RT community).

It’s already gone from 12.10 and onwards, thankfully (I removed it
from Debian unstable in May last year).

Dominic Hargreaves, Systems Development and Support Section
IT Services, University of Oxford

signature.asc (198 Bytes)

Which wiki, OOI?
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Request%20Tracker

About the wiki, it’s largely me you’re complaining about, so you got
the right guy: I did a large bolus of rework on it around 3.8 release
time, and have not been using rt-due to job changes-since, so I haven’t
gotten around to reworking it again for 4.x.
My apologies. Your article was indeed well written and did not provide
me with any difficulty in setting up RT. Google also complements your
hardwork by directing me to it when I needed the information. Sadly I
didn’t think to check if the referenced version was out of date. Do you
think you could put a quick warning at the top as a stop gap measure for
other folks who forget to check?
~Joshua

I am a little confused about the removal of the 3.8 version. I just set up
a 3.8 because according to the documentation I saw, it was what was
required for RT/IR add-on. RT is nice, but the IR add-on is what drove us
to adopt.

Is this correct, that the IR update for RT 4.0 is not yet ready or did I
install an older release unnecessarily?

Thank you.

KevinOn Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Joshua Lansford < Joshua.Lansford@laserlinc.com> wrote:

On 02/07/2013 03:41 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

About the wiki, it’s largely me you’re complaining about, so you got
the right guy: I did a large bolus of rework on it around 3.8 release
time, and have not been using rt-due to job changes-since, so I haven’t
gotten around to reworking it again for 4.x.

My apologies. Your article was indeed well written and did not provide me
with any difficulty in setting up RT. Google also complements your
hardwork by directing me to it when I needed the information. Sadly I
didn’t think to check if the referenced version was out of date. Do you
think you could put a quick warning at the top as a stop gap measure for
other folks who forget to check?
~Joshua


Help improve RT by taking our user survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/**
s/N23JW9T https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N23JW9T

Is this correct, that the IR update for RT 4.0 is not yet ready or did I
install an older release unnecessarily?

Looks like there is an alpha version ready for testing:
http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rtir/2011-October/000579.html