Redmine

Jean-Philippe Lang wrote:

Why not use the more standard X-Priority header?

Hrm. The header Priority has values "normal", "urgent" and "non-urgent". I can't find any RFC that defines the values of "X-Priority", but most examples I see use the values 1 through 5. While this maps up to Redmine's default priority values, other systems might have limited or extended these enumerations (e.g. my company uses "Low, Normal and Emergency". How would these modified values be mapped to X-Priority? 1, 3, 5? It's kinda vague, yeah?

I guess that's why I thought just creating a Redmine-specific priority header would be a better choice. What're your thoughts on this?

The following patch adds a standard Priority field defined in RFC 2156. The priority values are mapped to one of "normal", "urgent", or "non-urgent".

diff --git a/app/models/mailer.rb b/app/models/mailer.rb
index f58a1c88d..33b82a519 100644
--- a/app/models/mailer.rb
+++ b/app/models/mailer.rb
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ class Mailer < ActionMailer::Base

   # Builds a mail for notifying user about a new issue
   def issue_add(user, issue)
+    headers['Priority'] = priority_for_header(issue)
     redmine_headers 'Project' => issue.project.identifier,
                     'Issue-Tracker' => issue.tracker.name,
                     'Issue-Id' => issue.id,
@@ -103,6 +104,7 @@ class Mailer < ActionMailer::Base
   # Builds a mail for notifying user about an issue update
   def issue_edit(user, journal)
     issue = journal.journalized
+    headers['Priority'] = priority_for_header(issue)
     redmine_headers 'Project' => issue.project.identifier,
                     'Issue-Tracker' => issue.tracker.name,
                     'Issue-Id' => issue.id,
@@ -763,6 +765,17 @@ class Mailer < ActionMailer::Base
     h.each {|k, v| headers["X-Redmine-#{k}"] = v.to_s}
   end

+  def priority_for_header(issue)
+    position_name = issue.priority.position_name
+    if position_name.start_with?('high')
+      'urgent'
+    elsif position_name.start_with?('low')
+      'non-urgent'
+    else
+      'normal'
+    end
+  end
+
   # Singleton class method is public
   class << self
     def token_for(object, user)

Added test code to #2746#note-12.

Setting the target version to 5.0.0.

Go MAEDA wrote:

The following patch adds a standard Priority field defined in RFC 2156. The priority values are mapped to one of "normal", "urgent", or "non-urgent".

I found that it is not appropriate to use the Priority header to express issue priorities because the header is related to QoS control of mail delivery. RFC2076 says the header "can influence transmission speed and delivery".

Since issue priority has nothing to do with mail delivery priority, it is wrong to use the Priority header to express issue priority.