Redmine

I just realised r13999 only contains half the information to understand this… In r13999 the before filter for create was changed from IssuesController#find_project to ApplicationController#find_optional_project. The issuesController method looked for the project_id as project_id = params[:project_id] || (params[:issue] && params[:issue][:project_id]), but find_optional_project (source:/trunk/app/controllers/application_controller.rb@13999#L304) only looks for params[:project_id].

And as we're still investigating this even more info:

Felix Schäfer wrote:

it is not possible anymore to pass params[:issue][:project_id] to the new issue API anymore

It was possible to pass project_id as the identifier string before, this is not possible anymore, this only works with numeric IDs now.

Hello Felix and Holger,

FWIW, you might want to take a look at #19276 (and related #20119).

Greetings, Mischa.

Mischa, thanks for the follow-up.

As stated above, albeit not intended this is a regression in the REST API and in our eyes an (unannounced) breaking change. If the rationale to not restore this behaviour breakage is not wanting to write code for it, Holger provided a patch.

If the reason is because it wasn't intended it is not an acceptable changed, such a public API needs to be kept stable. Furthermore, the current behaviour is not consistent. As already noted in #20119 it is still possible to pass an identifier instead of the numeric ID to params[:project_id] but not to params[:issue][:project_id]. This means not supporting identifiers in params[:issue][:project_id] is a breaking regression and introduces an inconsistency between these 2 options.

We realise most of these arguments have already been discussed but we feel strongly about not breaking public APIs, even if the previous behaviour was not intended. This will be our last comment on the matter though and we will not discuss this further either way :-)

Felix Schäfer wrote:

This will be our last comment on the matter though and we will not discuss this further either way :-)

What Felix wanted to say was along the lines of "We won't be nagging about this anymore should the consensus be that the patch is not needed :) We just wanted to add our view on the matter."

We've implemented Holger's Patch at Planio anyways where we believe that consistency for existing users trumps correctness, but we're obviously perfectly fine should the patch not be integrated into Redmine.

Thanks to everyone involved!

I indeed didn't mean to be rude, sorry if it came across that way. Thanks Jan for clarifying.

Thank you :-)