Trac Ticket Queries

In addition to reports, Trac provides support for custom ticket queries, which can be used to display tickets that meet specified criteria.

To configure and execute a custom query, switch to the View Tickets module from the navigation bar, and select the Custom Query link.


When you first go to the query page, the default filter will display tickets relevant to you:

  • If logged in then all open tickets, it will display open tickets assigned to you.
  • If not logged in but you have specified a name or email address in the preferences, then it will display all open tickets where your email (or name if email not defined) is in the CC list.
  • If not logged in and no name/email is defined in the preferences, then all open issues are displayed.

Current filters can be removed by clicking the button to the left with the minus sign on the label. New filters are added from the dropdown lists at the bottom corners of the filters box; 'And' conditions on the left, 'Or' conditions on the right. Filters with either a text box or a dropdown menu of options can be added multiple times to perform an Or on the criteria.

You can use the fields just below the filters box to group the results based on a field, or display the full description for each ticket.

After you have edited your filters, click the Update button to refresh your results.

Clicking on one of the query results will take you to that ticket. You can navigate through the results by clicking the Next Ticket or Previous Ticket links just below the main menu bar, or click the Back to Query link to return to the query page.

You can safely edit any of the tickets and continue to navigate through the results using the Next/Previous/Back to Query links after saving your results. When you return to the query any tickets which were edited will be displayed with italicized text. If one of the tickets was edited such that it no longer matches the query criteria , the text will also be greyed. Lastly, if a new ticket matching the query criteria has been created, it will be shown in bold.

The query results can be refreshed and cleared of these status indicators by clicking the Update button again.

Saving Queries

Trac allows you to save the query as a named query accessible from the reports module. To save a query ensure that you have Updated the view and then click the Save query button displayed beneath the results. You can also save references to queries in Wiki content, as described below.

Note: one way to easily build queries like the ones below, you can build and test the queries in the Custom report module and when ready - click Save query. This will build the query string for you. All you need to do is remove the extra line breaks.

Note: you must have the REPORT_CREATE permission in order to save queries to the list of default reports. The Save query button will only appear if you are logged in as a user that has been granted this permission. If your account does not have permission to create reports, you can still use the methods below to save a query.

You may want to save some queries so that you can come back to them later. You can do this by making a link to the query from any Wiki page.

[query:status=new|assigned|reopened&version=1.0 Active tickets against 1.0]

Which is displayed as:

Active tickets against 1.0

This uses a very simple query language to specify the criteria, see Query Language.

Alternatively, you can copy the query string of a query and paste that into the Wiki link, including the leading ? character:

[query:?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&group=owner Assigned tickets by owner]

Which is displayed as:

Assigned tickets by owner

Customizing the table format

You can also customize the columns displayed in the table format (format=table) by using col=<field>. You can specify multiple fields and what order they are displayed in by placing pipes (|) between the columns:


This is displayed as:

Results (1 - 3 of 39)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Ticket Resolution Summary Owner Reporter
#41 fixed wglc bootstrap comment #5 draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap@… marc.blanchet@…
#40 fixed wglc bootstrap comment #4 draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap@… marc.blanchet@…
#39 fixed wglc bootstrap comment #3 draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap@… marc.blanchet@…
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Full rows

In table format you can also have full rows by using rows=<field>:


This is displayed as:

Results (1 - 3 of 39)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Ticket Resolution Summary Owner Reporter
#41 fixed wglc bootstrap comment #5 draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap@… marc.blanchet@…



Some nits: section 3: s/some defaults values/some default values/ section 3: s/no assumption of sorting at/no assumption of sorting within/ section 11: s/IANA own format/IANA's preferred format/ {perhaps?}

I’m not certain “preferred” is the right word, just a suggestion.

#40 fixed wglc bootstrap comment #4 draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap@… marc.blanchet@…


I've reviewed the bootstrap document. Generally, i think it does what it is supposed to do, but could use some editorial work and some definitions / clarifications:

There we go:

1. Introduction:

"extracts" instead of "extract", "does" instead of "do"

3. Structure:

  • "version id identified as a timestamp" etc.. sounds confusing. change to proper definition of metadata
  • Further, i think the whole document would benefit from defining a name for the several sub-arrays, because "the second third-level array" makes me look it up each time. I suggest using this section to define the "Entries" array, and the "Base URL" arrays, and use that terminology in subsequent sections. Sometimes those "Entries" seem to be called "keys" subsequently in the document? Clarify on terminology.
  • There's no text about recommended sorting in the "Entries" array

4. Domain RDAP registry

  • I find it weird (sic!) that the *definition* starts with an example. The definition should go first, and after that an example should be illustrative. It even gets more confusing reading the last sentence of that section "This example is not normative". To which of the two examples does this refer? Suggest to change the section so that formal definition comes first, and example follows.
  • Again, we have the "first array" and "second array" issue here. I think everybody knows what is supposed to happen, but i don't think that's formal enough for a Proposed Standard.

5. Internet Numbers

  • Again, this could benefit from being clear which "array" is being searched, in order to remove ambigiuity...
  • The description here is better than in section 4, because the definition comes first, followed by examples.
  • Text explaining what is in the "second array" is repetitive ("... which is an array of RDAP URLS..."). Again, defining a name for the Arrays in the document would make it clearer
  • (Same for the V6 section, where the text is repeated 1:1)

5.3. AS numbers

  • funny enough, the text defines a name for the "first arrays" here ("AS Numbers array"). Besides that, my comment from above apply again.

6. Entity

  • I'm unsure if the "could be queried" text tries to RECOMMEND some kind of client behaviour? It seems vague.
  • On the other hand, where is the client behaviour actually specified (Disclaimer: I have yet to read the other drafts). I can't find in the document that the client MUST or SHOULD use those URLs once it has discovered them (besides the text in the Introduction) -> Add this text?


  • The "error behaviour" of the client is much more precisely specified than the "success" bahaviour anywhere else in the document... I take that as an indication that we tend to be pessimists? ;-) We should also specify the "success" behaviour of the client (see above)

8. Deployment Cons.

  • "fetch registry every time" -> "fetch registry on every RDAP request"
  • I would actually be even stronger on the caching, and make that a MUST. This can be dangerous if clients get too creative..
  • Typo "garanteed"

9. Limitations

  • Change text slightly so that types don'T need to be prefixed with "for" everytime?
  • I'm confused by the "queries using search patterns", and have no idea what that means (but, again, i have yet to read the other documents thoroughly)

10. Security considerations

  • "Clients" rather than "End users"? I don't see how the registry makes sure that an entity that is not even defined for the document scope gets whatevery kind of information... If "end user" is defined in another RDAP document, refer there for terminology.

11. IANA

  • Without having an insight into the hallway discussions with IANA, i understand that the definition of Registries would require more information (see RFC5226, Section 4). Specifically, a registration policy etc. is required. Also, change control in case a revision of the Bootstrap document was to be done. However, i guess this is all up to discussion between document shepherds and IANA... I do

tia, Alex

#39 fixed wglc bootstrap comment #3 draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap@… marc.blanchet@…

from superuser@…


I've reviewed this draft. It's definitely on the right track and close to being ready, but there are a few things that need to be reviewed (especially Section 11) plus several editorial suggestions below.

1) In Section 1:

  • add a space before "(RDAP)"
  • s/request IANA/requests of IANA/
  • s/extract/extracts/
  • s/do a match/does a match/

2) In Section 3:

  • s/version id identified/version identifier represented/
  • s/defaults values/default values/
  • s/Then the "services" element is/There exists a "services" element, which is/

3) Also in Section 3, I would not be surprised if we were asked for ABNF describing this. I had to do this for RFC7071 as well, so you might find Section 6.2 helpful.

4) Also in Section 3, rather than requiring that all base URLs end in "/", couldn't the client just add one if it's missing in the bootstrap object? I'm wondering why that MUST is needed.

5) Also in Section 3, the SHOULD about ordering suggests to me that we ought to at least explain why the ordering is important. Does that mean clients are to try them in the order given, and we say SHOULD because HTTPS is preferred? Under what conditions might one legitimately deviate from the SHOULD? Would it not be better to simply have clients prefer secure protocols over insecure ones, in which case ordering doesn't matter? What about the idea of using URLs randomly to spread load in the same way the DNS returns randomized answers?

6) Also in Section 3, why do we MUST things into lowercase in the registry? Isn't it easier to require resolvers to treat them that way (which DNS resolvers already do)?

7) In Section 4, isn't the matching not only longest and right-justified, and ending at a label boundary? That is, for a successful match, the character right before the matching substring needs to be a dot as well, or maybe even start-of-string.

8) Also in Section 4, I would say something about how, if present, would supersede the values found in, when looking up

9) Also in Section 4, suggest dropping "This example is not normative." Same Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. (Are examples ever normative?)

10) In Section 5, I'm a little puzzled by the use of "longest match". I think it's right, but we might want to add parenthetically that we're actually looking to match the largest number of network bits. Otherwise, I'm a little fuzzy on what "longest" might mean because IP addresses are all the same size (within the same family).

11) In Section 8, suggest the following changes:

  • s/such as HTTP Expires/such as the HTTP Expires/
  • delete "to be RDAP queried"
  • s/no more current/no longer current/
  • s/a RDAP aggregator/an RDAP aggregator/
  • delete "This specification does not assume while not prohibiting how"; what's left is fine
  • s/garantee/guarantee/
  • s/rdap/RDAP/
  • s/garanteed/guaranteed/

12) In Section 9, suggest deleting "for" from the beginning of each bullet.

13) In Section 10:

  • s/helps making sure/helps to ensure/
  • s/from authoritative source/from an authoritative source/
  • s/The method itself/The method/

14) Section 11 still needs some work, as we discussed offline. One of the main things I believe it needs is to have each of the registries described in its own subsection; in particular, each needs to have a name and description given to the rows that would be needed to produce the JSON that RDAP needs. For example:

11.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Registry

IANA is requested to create the IPv4 Address Space RDAP Registry.

Entries in this registry contain at least the following fields:

o A CIDR [reference to definition of CIDR] specification for the network block being registered o One or more URLs that provide RDAP service regarding this registration. HTTPS URIs are to appear first in the list. (Or if order doesn't really matter to IANA, don't say that.)

[then copy the text about registry population that you already have]

[then copy the text about exporting it in JSON]

15) Also in Section 11, delete "such as XML" (two instances).

16) In Section 12, capitalize "WEIRDS".

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Query Language

query: TracLinks and the [[TicketQuery]] macro both use a mini “query language” for specifying query filters. Filters are separated by ampersands (&). Each filter consists of the ticket field name, an operator and one or more values. More than one value are separated by a pipe (|), meaning that the filter matches any of the values. To include a literal & or | in a value, escape the character with a backslash (\).

The available operators are:

= the field content exactly matches one of the values
~= the field content contains one or more of the values
^= the field content starts with one of the values
$= the field content ends with one of the values

All of these operators can also be negated:

!= the field content matches none of the values
!~= the field content does not contain any of the values
!^= the field content does not start with any of the values
!$= the field content does not end with any of the values

The date fields created and modified can be constrained by using the = operator and specifying a value containing two dates separated by two dots (..). Either end of the date range can be left empty, meaning that the corresponding end of the range is open. The date parser understands a few natural date specifications like "3 weeks ago", "last month" and "now", as well as Bugzilla-style date specifications like "1d", "2w", "3m" or "4y" for 1 day, 2 weeks, 3 months and 4 years, respectively. Spaces in date specifications can be omitted to avoid having to quote the query string.

created=2007-01-01..2008-01-01 query tickets created in 2007
created=lastmonth..thismonth query tickets created during the previous month
modified=1weekago.. query tickets that have been modified in the last week
modified=..30daysago query tickets that have been inactive for the last 30 days

See also: TracTickets, TracReports, TracGuide, TicketQuery

Last modified 6 years ago Last modified on 05/11/16 19:09:31