Did you know you can file bug reports or feature requests not only against CF or CFBuilder, but also for things related to CF like the CF docs, the CF2018 PMT, the CF Docker images, the API Manager, the CFFiddle.org site, and even Tracker itself? Read on.
Published: Aug 1, 2019 Updated: Aug 2, 2019 and May 21, 2020
You may know that you can file bug reports or feature requests for ColdFusion and CFBuilder (and search for past ones or track their status) at https://tracker.adobe.com. But did you know you can file those against related things (not “inside CF”) such as the CF docs, the Adobe ColdFusion Docker images, the CF2018 PMT (Performance Monitoring Toolset), the CF API Manager, the cffiddle (online code execution/demo) site, and more–even the Tracker site itself!
It may not be quite so obvious how to report against those things. The key is using the right “component” (or sometimes “product”) name in the select lists offered on the Tracker site. So in this post I help you see how to create entries for several key kinds of things that perhaps you never realized you could file in Tracker.
And Adobe really does pay attention to those bug reports: you may have noticed that each CF and CFBuilder update generally includes many, many listed bug fixes, including ones drawn from this reporting mechanism.
Updates: I updated the post in Aug 2019 with a bit of news, and then in May 2020 to add a couple more items (the code analyzers) that I think folks may not readily consider could have bugs/feature requests filed for them. I’ve also added the URL where the list of “component” values for CF are pulled from, which may help some in finding the “right” value for their issue.
The challenge that prompted this post is that many might never know or notice that they could file bug reports and feature requests against things that are not really “inside of” ColdFusion or CFBuilder, or are inside CF but not about the language or the CF Admin. Part of the challenge is that the choices in Tracker are not as obvious as they could be (and there over 300 choices!)
Here are several particular features you may want to file bugs or feature requests that I think ought to be called out:
- For the CF docs:
- You need to first choose “ColdFusion” as the product, and then in “component” (once CF and its version are selected, and in the very long list that appears) choose “Documentation”, or one of the few prefixed with that. (More about that long list, and my hope it may be improved, later here.)
- For the PMT:
- Again choose “ColdFusion” as the product (it’s not technically one of its own), and then in the component list choose one of the “components” that are prefixed with “PMT” (there are nearly two dozen). (This is an update from when I originally posted this. These component values were until yesterday mis-labelled as “APS”, the old name for the PMT.)
- For the CF Enterprise API Manager:
- Again choose “ColdFusion” (it’s also NOT its own product name) and then in “component” choose “API Manager”, or again any of the dozens prefixed with that. Like the tracker and docs points above, I agree that the names are pretty self-subscribing. I am simply pointing them out as some might presume that only “CF” issues could be raised, not these related things
- For the CF Docker Images:
- Choose “ColdFusion” and then in “component” choose one of the items prefixed with “Containers”. Not quite so obvious, but ok. (Perhaps they’re preparing for a day when they offer containers in other than the Docker format.) For more on the CF Docker images, if that’s new to you, see this post when they were announced
- For the cffiddle site:
- Choose “ColdFusion”, and then in “component” choose the not-so-obvious value, “CFApps : CFFiddle”. Again, the implication seems to be that there will be other “CFApps” in the future, which is encouraging. Note you can do that for either CF2016 or 2018, the two versions currently supported in CFFiddle
- For the CF Security Analyzer:
- Choose “ColdFusion”, and then in “component” choose “Security Analyzer”. If you find something about the results you don’t like, file a bug report (or feature request). I call this out because it’s not where some may look, in the group of components (above it) that are prefixed with “Security” and then naming the component. Instead, curiously it’s on it own.
- For the CF Code Compatibility Analyzer:
- Choose “ColdFusion”, and then in “component” choose “Administrator : Code Analyzer”. I call this out because some may not readily connect the dots that the tool is technically “in” the CF Admin, and so it’s tracked as a “component” of that
- For tracker itself:
- Finally, for this note that it is indeed listed as a separate “product”, labelled “Adobe Tracker”, because there are in fact other products not related to CF whose issues are to be filed in Tracker (and we all benefit from improvements made to it)
- For the CF portal site (coldfusion.adobe.com):
- There is currently no option in the tracker site for filing bug reports or feature requests for the CF Portal. I will file a feature request for that (so meta). In the meantime, you can report portal concerns by clicking the “contact us” link at the bottom of the portal. Rather than going to some generic Adobe bitbucket, that currently triggers an email href link: <a href=”mailto:cfcommunityportal@adobe.com?subject=ColdFusion Community Portal &body=Hi, This is regarding the ColdFusion Community Portal.”>Contact Us</a>
Improving Tracker itself
And speaking of filing issues against Tracker itself, I DID happen to file two yesterday (July 31, 2019) related to the above.
First, I filed a bug report complaining about that confusing nomenclature of using APS for the PMT. See (and add your vote if you agree) https://tracker.adobe.com/#/view/TKR-231.
Update: Great news: I can report that as of today (Aug 2, 2019) that has been addressed. Thanks, Adobe: and it’s another testament that it really is worth filing bug reports. (Don’t anyone presume that I might somehow get special treatment: trust me, there are plenty of issues I’ve raised that remain unresolved. I appreciate that they get hundreds, if not thousands per year to be considered.)
Second, I also had filed a feature request pointing out how challenging it is to choose from that “components” list for CF, as again there are over 300 items! I’m sure many pick the wrong one, as it’s not easy to find the right one. I’ve asked if they might add some sort of ajax search feature, to help us filter the list down. Again, please see/vote at https://tracker.adobe.com/#/view/TKR-232. I do hope to come back and modify this post if Adobe may address that.
Update: FWIW, while you can’t just do a “view source” in your browser to see all the values, I have determined since creating this post that the list of values is pulled from within the browser from a URL at https://tracker.adobe.com/api/jira/project/CF/components. It’s a json feed, that you could process using CFML or your favorite editor or online tools.
Finally, I filed another feature request to add the Portal as an option in Tracker, under “CF”, so that we can file bug reports or feature requests for that, at TKR-235. If you agree with the concerns I’ve raised here, please do go add your votes. Adobe does take votes into consideration when prioritizing items. (Update in May 2020: it’s still not been added. Again, I realize not every request we make will be addressed.)
But again my main goal in this post was just to let folks know that yes, you CAN file bug reports or feature requests not ONLY against CF and CFB, but also things related to CF, like the PMT, the docs, the CF Docker images, the API Mgr, the CFFiddle site, and even against Tracker itself. (Trust me, I know how painful Tracker can be as a UI. have in fact filed several other items about it.)
Hope that helps some folks.
For more blog content from Charlie Arehart, see his posts here as well as his posts at carehart.org. And follow him on Twitter and other social media as carehart.
Wizard
146 posts
Charlie,
Don’t be naive. You absolutely get special treatment. You’re too visible not to. The rest of us have had awful experiences with the bug tracker process as well as the support process in general. When critical bugs go unanswered for months at a time while Adobe adds new features to point releases, something is horribly wrong. The concept of semantic versioning is completely lost on the ColdFusion team, and they prioritize new features over critically-ranked bugs. They are clearly responding to someone’s priorities, but without transparency into that process, I have little faith they are actually responding to their customer concerns. They wouldn’t be working on a dying product if they were.
Oh for Pete’s sake. As for whether this one bug reported (about the tracker UI) may or may not have gotten “special treatment”, we’ll never know. Maybe it was more because it was publicized here.
As for the rest, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But I can’t help offering a retort.
1. First, why do we need to hear yet another screed against Adobe’s processing of bug reports? Even if you feel that your or some “important” bugs have NOT been addressed, there’s no denying that there have been hundreds of bugs fixed over the past several updates (that’s just a year or two).
They’re obviously not sitting on their thumbs doing nothing. And I’ve seen for a fact that some of them are directly related to bugs being reported, worked on per the comments, and then closed as fixes that were rolled into the next update.
So sure, mope about your needs not being met if you want. (I acknowledged that I do myself have several bugs I’ve reported that were never fixed. It is what it is.) Or move on to the greener pastures of other tech if you’re so disappointed with Adobe. (Why do those who think that CF is dying feel the need to repeat their point so often? It would seem it should be self-evident and not in need of such reminding.)
2. Anyway, I stand behind all I’ve said here in this post, and especially behind the motivation–to help people who want to report issues.
I wish more people who take the time to scream and holler would put that energy into doing something positive instead. The saying goes: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
I don’t usually take such an aggressive stance in my replies, but if I’m pushed, it’s hard not to push back. (You called me naive, after all.)
Bottom line: reporting bugs is not a waste of time. They don’t “all go into a vacuum”. Sure, some may have cases of their own that “prove it happens”, but that does not negate all the others that ARE fixed, and might NOT be if someone didn’t bother to raise them.
3. For those who feel this is an important point to be made, here’s an exercise for you: analyze and tell us how many bugs are reported and fixed, compared to how many are not.
For bonus points, do it on a rolling basis: what percentage of those filed in 2019 have been fixed? what percentage of those filed in 2018? 2017? It’s possible that more attention is paid to more recently filed issues. Points deducted (for this exercise) for focusing on bugs that are years old (more on that in a moment).
That sort of factual information might bolster (or disprove) your premise. You could then share that with Adobe. I realize it may not be easy info to gather. I realize we could argue it’s Adobe’s job to do. Again, I’m just offering it as “something to do”, for those to whom this is an annoying situation that “must change”.
And those with old bugs might consider filing a new one. Again, there may simply be priority given to newly created bugs. It could be human nature. It could be a remnant of how the old bug system was replaced by the newer one. Only time would tell if doing that would be a “waste” of the time spent. And sharing the news of that experience, either way, would again be “something to do”, for those with the motivation.
But I get it that those who’ve “checked out” on CF or Adobe won’t likely bother. Again, I’m just trying to move the ball down the field, instead of merely booing at the team from the stands.
Unfortunately I have been repeatedly disappointed by Adobe over the years about how slow they are to respond to, or even triage, bug reports. Most recently, over two weeks ago I submitted a report about a critical flaw in ColdFusion Builder’s code formatter. It results in lines of code being altered but remaining syntactically valid. This is so bad that it makes the code formatter fundamentally unsafe to use. Bear in mind that the code formatter is one of the (very few) premium features in the paid version of CFB that are not in the free Express version. Not a peep from Adobe so far on my report. This is not the first time either.
I should add that I love ColdFusion, I think the language, the server and CFB are all great products, and I have developed many business critical web applications with it. However, the attitude towards and level of support is atrocious in my opinion.
It’s indeed your right to share your opinion and relate your experience. Still, I don’t think it’s nearly as representative as you assert it to be. But then that’s merely my opinion as well.
I certainly wouldn’t have bothered to write this post and suggest people post issues, if I thought it totally pointless and a waste of time for them to do so.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
23 Nov
10AM Pacific
Online
