Version 0.9 of the Bugzilla REST API has been released.

This version has INCOMPATIBLE CHANGES in the data format – some field and parameter names have changed (see below). Therefore, the “/latest” installation on https://api-dev.bugzilla.mozilla.org has not been updated with it yet. It will be updated on

which is 1 month from today. At that point, all clients using that installation must be able to deal with both old and new formats.^[0] If you want to only support one format, you can update your code and migrate to the /0.9 installation at any point before then.

Also, 0.9 fixes BzAPI to deal with some late-breaking Bugzilla 4.0 changes. If you are deploying Bugzilla 4.0, this is the version you will need.

People deploying installations of 0.9 against their own Bugzillas should take note of the “Upgrading” section below.

New In 0.9

• Field name changes to match XML-RPC API
• Bugzilla 4.0rc2 now fully supported

Compatibility Notes

• Four field names on the “Bug” object have changed, to match the names chosen for the Bugzilla XML-RPC API’:
  • reporter -> creator
  • is_reporter_accessible -> is_creator_accessible
  • token -> update_token
  • is_everconfirmed -> is_confirmed

  In each case, you will need to change your code to look for the first hash value and, if it’s not found, look for the second one.

• The emailN_reporter field is now called emailN_creator, to match the
  above change.

• Versions 0.6.1 and 0.7 are now no longer available on the api-dev
  server.

Upgrading Your BzAPI

BzAPI now comes with a Bugzilla extension, suitable for 3.6 and above, which replaces (most of) the patches that we used to ship. Unless you are on an earlier version of Bugzilla, please remove the old patches (except the XML-RPC one) and install the extension instead. You may want to symlink it so it automatically gets updated in step when you upgrade BzAPI.

Those choosing not to do this will still need to take a new version of config.json.tmpl from the patches/ directory.

File bugs | Feedback and discussion

[0] I apologise for not having a better backwards-compatibility story, but it was very difficult to update all the tests to support the data being duplicated in two field names. I tried, and gave up as it was taking too long. And this is pre-1.0 software (just).