RFCs having errata are not marked approprietly in document lists

[ietf-svn-bot]

resolution_fixed type_defect | by valery@smyslov.net

---

In the past whenever a list of documents was displayed in the datatracker,
the RFCs with existing errata were marked with a red "Errata" sign.
Somehow this functionality got lost (at least from 6.110.0 or even before),
so now this sign never appears, even for RFCs with errata (see the attached picture, RFC6311 does have errata).
I checked the datatracker sources and it seems that all the code to display
this sign is it place, so it's a result of a bug and not of a deliberate
decision to remove this sign.

It seems to me that the bug is at the line 122 of ietf/doc/utils_search.py.
As far as I understand in this line id__in should be used instead of name__in
(at least when I made this change in my local copy "Errata" sign
appears properly.

---

Issue migrated from trac:2997 at 2022-03-04 07:52:14 +0000

[ietf-svn-bot]

@valery@smyslov.net uploaded file noerrata.jpg (115.6 KiB)

[ietf-svn-bot]

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented

---

I think I remember that the reason the errata link isn't shown now was
that the code we had took this from information extracted from the RFC
Editor's rfc-index.xml file, and that did not distinguish between verified
errata and other errata.

Since then, more comprehensive errata information is available through
the file https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.json and that is where we
should get errata information for display.

If the errata information is made part of the ietf.doc.models.Document,
and imported daily, it should not cost a lot to display a count of
verified errata in a document list. At the same time, the errata link
on each individual document page could be updated to show a count and
have a distinguishing background colour.

Maybe we should also distinguish between Editorial and Technical errata?

[ietf-svn-bot]

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented

---

I looked at your suggested fix, and it could be that everything else has been updated to use the verified errata information, and the use of name__in is simply a bug, and that's the only fix
needed. However, please verify that the information is based on verified errata, rather than
any errata (this should apply to the individual document page errata links, too).

[ietf-svn-bot]

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed status from new to accepted

[ietf-svn-bot]

@valery@smyslov.net changed status from accepted to closed

[ietf-svn-bot]

@valery@smyslov.net changed resolution from `` to fixed

[ietf-svn-bot]

@valery@smyslov.net commented

---

I've made some distinctive displaying of verified vs reported/rejected errata: the former are displayed in red while the latter are displayed in orange. I don't know whether it's OK, but it seems that this distinction helps visually identify more serious cases.