Is there a 'correct' way to report a bug for CE?
-
I'm not sure the redmine bug tracker is actively managed in any way. At least I've never seen a meaningful response when I've found a bug I've encountered has already been reported or added one myself.
Have also found that mentioning a bug in the sub-forum here relating to that functionality (e.g. post about a firewall bug in 'Firewalling').
Is there anywhere actively monitored where it's possible to get some engagement from Netgate? It's not immediately obvious from searching about.
-
@Konan-0 said in Is there a 'correct' way to report a bug for CE?:
redmine
https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/issues is right, if you need more help buy TAC support.
-
Fair enough. Don't need any help, just wanted to make sure a clear bug was reported correctly.
I guess I hadn't realised they were so far behind.
-
@Konan-0 Nothing's behind. If you've discovered a novel bug, it will receive quick attention.
-
What bug re you referring to specifically?
-
If you specify a gateway group in a rule AND use a limiter with a source mask, it uses the post NAT IP for the queue, not the IP of the device.
I believe this: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15770
Which I can see the original poster never replied to when asked - but I've added context (and would happily contribute more detail if asked).
Discussed here:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/197993/limiter-source-mask-now-after-nat-when-using-gateway-groups-2-8-change
(I actually think the behavior broke before 2.8 now, but havn't had a chance to step through versions to find when)
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/197813/bandwidth-limiter-per-client-not-working-with-alternate-wan-gateway
I think this behavior is related - one I opened last year (it's a far more 'fringe' issue, I think):
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15519
So I was wondering if I was going about engaging in the wrong way or misunderstanding redmine as there are open confirmed bugs if you filter down to limiters that date back to 2014.
-
Bugs have to be prioritised. And some are opened over things unlikely to be addressed. That is the correct way though.
But this seems familiar. Continuing discussion in the related thread:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/197993/limiter-source-mask-now-after-nat-when-using-gateway-groups-2-8-change -
S stephenw10 locked this topic
-
Adding to what has already been said:
Usually if someone thinks the bug has a factor making it unclear, invalid, or questionable in some way, a developer or TAC staff member will comment and ask for more info, close/reject it, etc. We're not usually shy about asking for more detail, method of reproducing the bug, and so on.
The fact that it was left as-is can sometimes (though not always) be taken to mean it was potentially valid or at least sufficiently clearly described and it needs someone to look at it, investigate, get further confirmation, that sort of thing.
