Hi, Did anyone had a chance to have look at my post-commit implementation? http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard
The subversion implementation is complete and for Perforce I realized the basic feature set. It is already possible to create requests by typing in change numbers in the Post-commit web form. Best regards, Philipp -- Philipp Henkel Citrix Online - www.citrixonline.com The views expressed here are mine alone and have not been authorized by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, Citrix. On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Jan Koprowski <jan.koprow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> > wrote: > > Hey, > > > I'll be honest, I'm not wild about Review Board's codebase knowing about > > post-review at all. It introduces some compatibility concerns and makes it > > harder to move forward on either end without breaking the other. > > I suspect You will say that and I completely understand this and agree > with Your approach. > > > What I'd prefer instead is just expanding upon the capabilities that SCMTool > > offers. However, I haven't looked at the code for this feature yet, so I > > can't really say how much overlap there'd end up being. > > It is good enought to just "fix" current post-review e.g. allow to > generate reviews from git bare-repositories and then somehow "share" > this common peace of code with reviewboard and rbtools - somehow. > > > post-review (and RBTools) is going to end up changing to provide an actual > > Python API for clients and for talking to RB, and at that point we may want > > to look at what can be factored out into some common library. But I don't > > want to jump the gun on that yet. > > If rbtools code will be ported into RB - it is a good approach to > write more patches to rbtools which will be able to work on "bare" > repositories and add more post-review methods for each version-control > system. Then - just add GUI to this functions - that is all. > > > > > > > Christian > > > -- > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Jan Koprowski <jan.koprow...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> Philipp, > > >> Thank You for fast response. Implementing new class to do the same > >> (what rbtools.postreview does) sounds like some part of work can be > >> "reused". Guessing (watching screenshot o Your website) You have > >> different approach to Subversion post-review requesting but for other > >> tools like ClearQuest, Git and I thought also mercurial classes from > >> rbtools.postreview are perfect to reuse in most cases. > >> Please, forgive me, but I'm engineer and I always though in terms of > >> implementation. So. rbtools could be not also client-side library but > >> also server side library (I'm thinking loudly now) ReviewBoard can > >> detect it > > >> try: > >> from rbtools import postreview > >> expect ImportError: > >> postreview = None > > >> if postreview: > >> # Turn on Philipp's magic stuff > > >> And then only thing which is need is extend existing classes from > >> postreview by some additional methods and use existing which can be > >> used e.g. will be nice to have method which return all available > >> branches available in repository to autocomplete names of this > >> branches in reviewboard. But everything else are present already. Your > >> Subversion method is probably some kind of implementation of > >> --revision-range="" or something similar. > > >> What do You thinking about such postreview implementation in ReviewBoard? > > >> Greetings from Poland! > >> -- > > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Philipp Henkel > >> <weltraumpi...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi Jan, > > >> > I neither use post-review nor the rbtools. I decided to slightly > >> > extend the SCM tool concept and derived a new class from SVNTool. This > >> > new SCM tool provides functionality like diff file creation or > >> > generation of revisions which are not yet added to Review Board. > >> > Web user interfaces are not my core competence. Therefore any Java > >> > Script magic is welcome :-) > >> > I implemented a "New Review Request" form especially for my post- > >> > commit needs. The Upload diff form is the same at the moment. > > >> > Greetings from Germany, > >> > Philipp > > >> > On Apr 8, 5:33 pm, Jan Koprowski <jan.koprow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi Philipp, > > >> >> Are You simply running post-review under the scene or somehow import > >> >> Python classes from rbtools and call appropriate method? > >> >> I will also a little bit improve UI leaving "New Review Request" but > >> >> modifying it just extending window by some "Java Script" tab > >> >> likehttp://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/e.g.: > >> >> Upload diff > >> >> Enter revisions > > >> >> Greetings from Poland, > > >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Philipp Henkel > > >> >> <weltraumpi...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Hi Rob, > > >> >> > Most probably moving to 1.6 code line is not much effort. At least I > >> >> > tried to keep my changes to the main code base small. At the moment > >> >> > I'm fully focused on adding more feature and therefore I have not yet > >> >> > evaluated 1.6. > >> >> > Regarding scmbug: Parsing the svn log is not a big deal and not much > >> >> > overhead as all data is already cached. If a regex is used to extract > >> >> > bug numbers this is good candidate for an official feature in my > >> >> > opinion. > > >> >> > Have a nice weekend, > >> >> > Philipp > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Philipp Henkel > >> >> > Citrix Online -www.citrixonline.com > > >> >> > On Apr 8, 10:22 am, Rob Coward <r...@jive-videos.net> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Philipp, > > >> >> >> This looks like a great feature - our dev teams work > >> >> >> by checking in code at the end of each day, so being able to do a > >> >> >> post-commit review over multiple revisions would be a killer feature > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> us. I'm currently evaluating the 1.6beta1 version - would there be > >> >> >> much > >> >> >> involved in porting your changes up to the 1.6 code base ? > > >> >> >> We use > >> >> >> scmbug to integrate SVN with bugzilla, so our checkin comments have > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> consistent format - what would be involved in getting your code to > >> >> >> use a > >> >> >> RE pattern to parse bug numbers out of the revision comments and > >> >> >> automatically add them to the review ? > > >> >> >> Looking forward to seeing this > >> >> >> functionality integrated into the main codebase. > > >> >> >> Rob > > >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Apr > >> >> >> 2011 05:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote: > > >> >> >> > Hi, > > >> >> >> > In order > > >> >> >> to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I> created a > > >> >> >> customized version of Review Board 1.5.> I integrated a new request > > >> >> >> creation form into the web user interface > > >> >> >> > and extended the Subversion > >> >> >> SCM tool. > > >> >> >> > The creation of a new request is now as simple as > >> >> >> follows: > >> >> >> > - Select a repository which features post-commit - at the > >> >> >> moment > >> >> >> > Subversion only > >> >> >> > - Hit "Show my pending revisions" to get list > >> >> >> of your latest code > >> >> >> > changes > >> >> >> > - Select one or more of your revisions > >> >> >> from the list > >> >> >> > - Hit "Create" button to automatically build up the > >> >> >> request > > >> >> >> > My changes are fully compatible with Review Board 1.5. I > >> >> >> did not add > >> >> >> > new database tables nor colums. Therefore you can easily > >> >> >> install post- > >> >> >> > reviewboard over your 1.5 installation. > > >> >> >> > The source, > > >> >> >> more information and a screenshot is available at > > >> >> >>http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard[1] > > >> >> >> > Of course, any > > >> >> >> feedback is appreciated! > > >> >> >> > Best regards, > >> >> >> > Philipp > > >> >> >> Links: > >> >> >> ------ > >> >> >> [1]http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today > >> >> > athttp://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > >> >> > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > >> >> > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> >> > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> >> > For more options, visit this group > >> >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > > >> >> -- > > >> >> ><> Jan Koprowski > > >> > -- > >> > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at > >> >http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > >> > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > >> > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> > For more options, visit this group at > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > > >> -- > >> ><> Jan Koprowski > > >> -- > >> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at > >>http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > >> Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > >> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > > -- > > > > ><> Jan Koprowski -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
