Editing a file online should trigger the service hooks. However, we are investigating an issue for delayed service hooks, which this may be related to. We'll let you know when we have a resolution for this.
Looking at that repo, it looks like the push event was lost for that commit. Earlier in the week we were having some issue with our background tasks that may explain this.
I do not believe that this issue is related to online edit though.
I'm monitoring our channels to see if the problem is still occurring but unfortunately it is hard to determine the exact error right now. Please let us know if you do see this error again and we will investigate this further.
Yes, there is a relationship. The mechanism that sends tweets is the same as the one adds items to the activity feed. Unfortunately, once an event has been lost there is no way to recover it. So you won't be able to receive the tweet now.
However, new events should be working now, so let us know if you see any new occurrences of this bug and we will look into it.
Adding support for this issue. As Kaz says above, the issue of not firing the hooks for a Merge or Sync from the BB Branch Tools (/branches) prevents a key scenario for my team (on Mercurial). We'd like to be able to enable testers to pull the latest DEV code into the TEST branch and thus receive a new build from our CI system (AppHarbor). If we could fire hooks from the Branches page on BB, this would be a one-stop shop for them, but as it is now, our testers have to either do the merge themselves locally or (more likely) have a developer do it. This is highly asymmetrical treatment of the remote push versus an internal push - oddly implemented to my thinking.
And if this gets worked on, I'd like to suggest a button to "Fire All Hooks" or similar to force external CI listeners to rebuild/etc. This would be a nice-to-have as an effective way to force the rebuild/redeploy of software when making changes to hardware/settings/etc on an external CI provider or to force a rebuild in case of other failure. Not strictly BB's problem, but like I said, making BB a one-stop provider only makes the offering stronger. It would also help hook testing.
I've also submitted this through Attlassian support (BBS-7460) and they basically told me that I had an interesting idea.
Issue #8327 appears to be a duplicate of this issue.
I tested this (online editing) yesterday, before the status of this issue was changed to resolved and also after the status was changed to resolved, and sadly no hooks were fired during either attempt.
The new issue created (#9161) appears to be only vaguely related (of course it might be connected to the underlying reason). I am afraid that the online editor problem might go unfixed, now that both this issue and issue #8327 are effectively closed.
Is the new issue really the underlying problem, or should this issue rather be reopened?