Open anthonyjlau opened 2 months ago
@anthonyjlau Could you post a few screenshots here of the sections with the difference? I.e. without comments, create_id, and also the offset portion you showed on call?
This is what the comments fields look like for the Red Hat API call.
This is what the comments fields looks like for the Mozilla API call.
The offset part is more relevant in issue #300 which I mentioned in there.
The Bugzilla parser is able to parse issues and issues with comments for the Red Hat Bugzilla website. However, it is unable to parse issues with comments for other Bugzilla websites. The reason for this is because the comments field of the Red Hat json file is slightly different from the format of other websites. For example, this Red Hat API call is different from this Mozilla API call. For this case, the Red Hat json file has a field called 'creator_id' while the Mozilla json file does not have that.
Another problem is that some websites do not provide comments even when the include_fields parameter has comments. For example, this GCC API call (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/rest.cgi/bug?creation_time=2024-04-25T00:00:00Z&include_fields=_default,comments&limit=20&offset=0) has
include_fields=_default,comments
, which means it should include details about the comments on the bug. However, there is no comments section at all.