Re: Authentication problems with 1.5 api via perl.
i have tried to built like this,but still not working
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
use LWP::UserAgent;
use MIME::Base64;
$url="http://codereview.xyz.com/api/review-requests/";;
$newurl="http://codereview.xyz.com/r/new/";;
$user="admin";
$pwd="admin";
$text="$user:$pwd";
$text = encode_base64($text);
#print "Encoded text: $text\n";
%param =(
"repository_id" =>"cvsrepo",
"repository_path" =>":pserver:user:pwd\@svn:/opt/cvsroot",
"username" => "admin",
"password" => "admin",
"submit-as" => "username",
);
my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new;
$ua->timeout(TIMEOUT);
$ua->protocols_allowed(['http', 'https']);
$ua->default_header('Basic' => $text);
$ua->credentials($newurl,$user,$pwd);
$resp = $ua->get($url);
print($resp->status_line(), "\n");
print("Add handler:\n");
$ua->add_handler( response_header => sub { print "HANDLER\n"; },
%param);
print $ua->handlers('response_header', $resp)."\n";
push @{ $ua->requests_redirectable }, 'POST';
print $ua->show_progress."\n";
my $response = $ua->post($newurl,%param);
if ($response->is_success) {
print $response->decoded_content;
}
else {
die $response->status_line;
}
On Friday, August 10, 2012 2:56:12 PM UTC+5:30, Gavin Main wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff, did you ever get this resolved? I am facing a similar issue.
>
> Christian, I am loving Reviewboard. Thank You!!!
>
> Cheers,
> Gav
>
> On Friday, 22 October 2010 02:06:16 UTC+8, Jeff wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to write an svn pre-commit hook against a totally new
>> installation of reviewboard 1.5 (upgraded from the previous version,
>> but never really used).
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the documentation, the json login page isn't
>> used anymore, and I just use basic HTTP authentication.
>>
>> My perl code looks like this:
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>> use LWP::UserAgent;
>>
>> my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new;
>> #$ua->credentials("$rbhost:80","Web API",'user' => 'password');
>>
>> my $req = HTTP::Request->new(GET => "http://reviewboard.local.com/
>> rboard/api/review-requests/93/last-update/
Re: Review Board 1.7.6 is released!
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu 21 Feb 2013 10:14:29 AM CET, Christian Hammond wrote: >> Hey everyone, >> >> 1.7.6 is out. The big highlight is support for Perforce ticket-based >> auth, which I know will make a lot of you happy. >> >> There's also a scattering of fixes and feature enhancements. >> >> See http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/releasenotes/dev/reviewboard/1.7.6/ for >> more information. >> > > I've released updated Fedora 18 and Rawhide packages for ReviewBoard 1.7.6: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-djblets-0.7.11-1.fc18,ReviewBoard-1.7.6-1.fc18 > Review Board 1.7.6 released on BitNami as well. Installers, virtual machines and cloud images available in http://bitnami.org/stack/reviewboard > -- > 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 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Reviewboard returns error 200 when publishing a review
Hi Christian, It is Firefox. Below is the requested info. If it helps, once the review gets into this state, the person can reproduce at will as their review comes up waiting to published or discarded. Thanks, -amac URL Status Domain Size Timeline Firebug's log limit has been reached. 0 entries not shown. Preferences Net panel activated. Any requests while the net panel is inactive are not shown. GET draft?api_format=json https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/reviews/draft/?api_format=json 301 MOVED PERMANENTLY rb.corp.linkedin.com 14 B 28ms ParamsHeadersPostPutResponseCacheHTML Response Headersview source Date Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT Server Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) Content-Length 14 Content-Language en-us Expires Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT Vary Accept,Cookie,Accept-Language Last-Modified Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT Location https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/reviews/216167/?api_format=json Cache-Control max-age=0 Keep-Alive timeout=15, max=99 Connection Keep-Alive Content-Type application/vnd.reviewboard.org.review-draft+json Request Headersview source Host rb.corp.linkedin.com User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110421 Red Hat/3.6.17-1.el6_0 Firefox/3.6.17 Accept application/json, text/javascript, */* Accept-Language en-us,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding gzip,deflate Accept-Charset ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive 115 Connection keep-alive X-Requested-With XMLHttpRequest Referer https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/r/138009/diff/ Cookie bcookie="v=2&473ac65f-38cc-41cb-ba42-2e214a904cb8"; __utma=23068709.1633103721.1349950434.1354851484.1361500557.8; __utmz=23068709.1349950434.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none); __qca=P0-98666925-128840575; csrftoken=79e3f5e8b0223aea90c79ddda8f602de; rbsessionid=839445e871ec4cb9d1a1ff7facda114a; __utma=114128021.1917358441.1348518312.1358570796.1360023043.16; __utmz=114128021.1348518312.1.1.utmcsr=iwww.corp.linkedin.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/wiki/cf/display/PRT/Unite%20Hiring%20Project; __utmv=23068709.user; __utmc=114128021; sdsc=1%3A1SZM1shxDNbLt36wZwCgPgvN58iw%3D; lang="v=2&lang=en-us&c="; __utmc=23068709; lror="profile.v2.override=A&"; collapsediffs=True; _lipt="0_3SIWY4ytFDXTUqK2n4vRWMF1-ZezVw7mZXqvIT81hzx-igiaD4PKuvRHr8JVfzmiAQjjsnaSv-d9A9Pw_VGq54xI4vhhGGWbacnbnjtSt7Ir9FVEAjumRIiRNKbJTJBcZ5dw8DhP_RrOAkII527ioet-ATbfo0Xm7eMlePj2--Sm5-eBKpV1LxOwO3O1ogORYNaHZhTO_5azwGe6wgnRUqdtQ-YypcEVNlQZLxoBx205GWFVRKuLP9ApqSmvVGZhZ71uxq4cPzTEOJc_cirqBFoYJVpaoEhGjuLspJjEHuc" GET 216167?api_format=json https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/reviews/216167/?api_format=json 200 OK rb.corp.linkedin.com 412 B 21ms ParamsHeadersPostPutResponseCacheHTML Response Headersview source Date Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT Server Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) Content-Length 412 Content-Language en-us Content-Encoding gzip Expires Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT Vary Accept,Cookie,Accept-Language,Accept-Encoding Last-Modified Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:32:04 GMT Cache-Control max-age=0 Keep-Alive timeout=15, max=99 Connection Keep-Alive Content-Type application/vnd.reviewboard.org.review+xml Request Headersview source Host rb.corp.linkedin.com User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110421 Red Hat/3.6.17-1.el6_0 Firefox/3.6.17 Accept text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language en-us,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding gzip,deflate Accept-Charset ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive 115 Connection keep-alive Referer https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/r/138009/diff/ Cookie bcookie="v=2&473ac65f-38cc-41cb-ba42-2e214a904cb8"; __utma=23068709.1633103721.1349950434.1354851484.1361500557.8; __utmz=23068709.1349950434.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none); __qca=P0-98666925-128840575; csrftoken=79e3f5e8b0223aea90c79ddda8f602de; rbsessionid=839445e871ec4cb9d1a1ff7facda114a; __utma=114128021.1917358441.1348518312.1358570796.1360023043.16; __utmz=114128021.1348518312.1.1.utmcsr=iwww.corp.linkedin.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/wiki/cf/display/PRT/Unite%20Hiring%20Project; __utmv=23068709.user; __utmc=114128021; sdsc=1%3A1SZM1shxDNbLt36wZwCgPgvN58iw%3D; lang="v=2&lang=en-us&c="; __utmc=23068709; lror="profile.v2.override=A&"; collapsediffs=True; _lipt="0_3SIWY4ytFDXTUqK2n4vRWMF1-ZezVw7mZXqvIT81hzx-igiaD4PKuvRHr8JVfzmiAQjjsnaSv-d9A9Pw_VGq54xI4vhhGGWbacnbnjtSt7Ir9FVEAjumRIiRNKbJTJBcZ5dw8DhP_RrOAkII527ioet-ATbfo0Xm7eMlePj2--Sm5-eBKpV1LxOwO3O1ogORYNaHZhTO_5azwGe6wgnRUqdtQ-YypcEVNlQZLxoBx205GWFVRKuLP9ApqSmvVGZhZ71uxq4cPzTEOJc_cirqBFoYJVpaoEhGjuLspJjEHuc" GET last-update?api_format=json https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/last-update/?api_format=json 200 OK rb.corp.linkedin.com 317 B 35ms ParamsHeadersPostPutResponseCacheHTML Response Headersview source Date Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:04:55 GMT Server Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) Content-Length 317 Content-Language en-us
RB migration- non-existent revisions?
Hello- I am migrating from RB 1.6.3 on SQLite and local git repos to RB 1.7.5 on PostgreSQL and remote git repos and cgit. I have successfully migrated the data and reviewboard 1.7.5 is running, however, the diff viewer is broken. It seems that RB is passing non-existent SHA hashes to cgit so cgit always returns the latest version of the file. The resultant error is: Diff currently unavailable. *Error:* The patch to 'tools/make_tarballs' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cCQhSt' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.cCQhSt/tmpC2DNFj Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] Apply anyway? [n] Skipping patch. 7 out of 7 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file /tmp/reviewboard.cCQhSt/tmpC2DNFj-new.rej RB shows "Revision c4b297e0380c2c0bc1610659eb1b6bfdccfe196f" but this revision does not exist in the git repository. What I don't understand is what the "revision" under the file name in the diff viewer came from since it does not exist in the repository. In the old installation (still running), the revision is the same non-existent SHA hash, but the diff viewer works. Does it make a difference that the patch was partially committed? Where does that revision come from? Thanks for any help. Cheers, M -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: RB migration- non-existent revisions?
On 2013-02-25 11:54, age...@themactionfaction.com wrote: I am migrating from RB 1.6.3 on SQLite and local git repos to RB 1.7.5 on PostgreSQL and remote git repos and cgit. I have successfully migrated the data and reviewboard 1.7.5 is running, however, the diff viewer is broken. It seems that RB is passing non-existent SHA hashes to cgit so cgit always returns the latest version of the file. The resultant error is: Diff currently unavailable. *Error:* The patch to 'tools/make_tarballs' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.cCQhSt' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.cCQhSt/tmpC2DNFj Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] Apply anyway? [n] Skipping patch. 7 out of 7 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file /tmp/reviewboard.cCQhSt/tmpC2DNFj-new.rej RB shows "Revision c4b297e0380c2c0bc1610659eb1b6bfdccfe196f" but this revision does not exist in the git repository. What I don't understand is what the "revision" under the file name in the diff viewer came from since it does not exist in the repository. In the old installation (still running), the revision is the same non-existent SHA hash, but the diff viewer works. Does it make a difference that the patch was partially committed? Where does that revision come from? Thanks for any help. This isn't a commit ID, but a blob ID. If you use 'git show ', you should get a dump of the file contents. It sounds like your 'raw file URL' for your repository is not set correctly. Make sure it is set to a template from which cgit will accept a *blob ID* (not a commit ID) to retrieve a specific version of a file. -- Matthew -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Error while adding perforce 2012.2 repository to reviewboard 1.7.4
Can you get full logs of the output of all of those steps and attach them/pastebin them somewhere? -David On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:27 AM, chuck j wrote: > Thanks David for responding my email. > > Here are the steps which i followed. > > My Linux box has el5 has following openssl package. > > openssl097a-0.9.7a-9.el5_2.1 > openssl-devel-0.9.8e-12.el5 > openssl097a-0.9.7a-9.el5_2.1 > openssl-0.9.8e-12.el5 > openssl-0.9.8e-12.el5 > openssl-devel-0.9.8e-12.el5 > > To compile p4python, i need to have openssl 1.0.1 > > So i downloaded openssl 1.0.1c, > ./config > make > make test > make install > > Openssl gets installed at /usr/local/ssl location. > > I downloaded p4python and p4api from perforce.org site. > > python setup.py build --apidir /home/me/p4api --ssl /usr/local/ssl/lib > python setup.py install > > Then i assume that p4python gets installed. > > I tested with the steps in python prompt > > import P4 > p4 = P4.P4() > p4.connect() > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "", line 1, in > File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/site >> >> -packages/P4.py", line 642, in connect >> P4API.P4Adapter.connect( self ) >> P4.P4Exception: [P4.connect()] Connect to server failed; check $P4PORT. >> SSL library must be at least version 1.0.1. >> > > Please let me know if you need any thing else. > > Regards, > Chuck > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:25 AM, David Trowbridge wrote: > >> Can you show me a log of exactly which commands you used to build and >> install p4python? >> >> >> -David >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM, chuck j wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Its seems i have got some success while configuring ssl. >>> >>> Now that our perforce server is running on ssl >>> >>> I am try to add the repository, while doing so i am getting below error >>> message. >>> >>> >>>- *The specified Perforce port includes ssl:, but the p4python >>>library was built without SSL support or the system library path is >>>incorrect. * >>> >>> As we have not able to find rpm for RHEL 2.6 OpenSSL 1.0.1, we have to >>> build openssl 1.0.1, which eventually got installed at /usr/local/ssl/bin/ >>> /usr/local/ssl/ then we have build p4python with --ssl option. >>> >>> But its seems that still reviewboard reports about the above error >>> message. Please help us know where to add the path of new build openssl >>> library for which reviewboard server is looking for, if some pointer will >>> be highly appreciated. >>> >>> -Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:24 AM, chuck j wrote: >>> Does my p4 info output gave expected output. [root@svrrb1 works]# p4 info User name: chuckj Client name: svrrb1 Client host: svrrb1.na.software.com Client unknown. Current directory: /works Peer address: 182.16.43.144:42238 Client address: Server address: :1666 Server root: /PFMETA/p4root Server date: 2013/02/12 01:09:47 -0800 PST Server uptime: 286:15:29 Server version: P4D/LINUX26X86_64/2012.2/50 (2013/01/18) Server encryption: encrypted Server cert expires: Jan 31 10:22:47 2015 GMT Server license: Software Corporation users (expires 2013/02/21) Server license-ip: :1666 Case Handling: sensitive > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:49:40 PM UTC+5:30, chuck j wrote: > > Since i couldn't find openssl 1.0.1 rpm, I have to manually compile > and build then install it to the default path, then later i have build > p4python. > > root@svrrb1 p4python-2012.2.549493# python setup.py build --apidir > /works/p4api-2012.2.585708/ --ssl /usr/local/ > root@svrrb1 p4python-2012.2.549493# python setup.py install --apidir > /works/p4api-2012.2.585708/ > > Assuming everything above working fine i test by providing below > command line. > > >>> import P4 > >>> p4 = P4.P4() > >>> p4.connect() > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "", line 1, in > File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/**site-packages/P4.py", line 642, in > connect > P4API.P4Adapter.connect( self ) > P4.P4Exception: [P4.connect()] Connect to server failed; check $P4PORT. > SSL library must be at least version 1.0.1. > > Does my P4Python is build with OpenSSL.1.0.1 libarary, What is missing > in my setup? > > I know this is not the right forum for above queries but this may > provide some hint why adding repository to reviewboard is giving error. > > Please let me know if you need any more info, log for the same. > > - Chuck > > > > > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:51:15 PM UTC+5:30, chuck j wrote: >> >> Hi , >> >> This is what i get for p4 info >> >> [root@svrrb1 works]# export P4USER=chuckj >> [root@svrrb1 works]# export P4PORT=ssl::1666 >> [root@svrrb1 works]# p4 login >> Enter password: >> User chuckj logged in. >> >>
Re: Reviewboard returns error 200 when publishing a review
Okay, I see a lot of requests that are all valid-looking, and returning proper HTTP 200 results. Nothing there looks wrong. I don't see any payload responses, so maybe that just wasn't included in your dump. I'd need to know exactly which of those requests the 200 error is coming from. (It won't be the last-update/ ones), and see the associated payload. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:36 AM, amac Mac wrote: > Hi Christian, > > It is Firefox. Below is the requested info. If it helps, once the review gets > into this state, the person can reproduce at will as their review comes up > waiting to published or discarded. Thanks, > > -amac > > URL > > Status > > Domain > > Size > > Timeline > Firebug's log limit has been reached. 0 entries not shown. Preferences > Net panel activated. Any requests while the net panel is inactive are not > shown. > > > GET draft?api_format=json > https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/reviews/draft/?api_format=json > > 301 MOVED PERMANENTLY > > rb.corp.linkedin.com > > 14 B > > > 28ms > > ParamsHeadersPostPutResponseCacheHTML > Response Headersview source > Date Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT > Server Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) > Content-Length 14 > Content-Language en-us > Expires Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT > Vary Accept,Cookie,Accept-Language > Last-Modified Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT > Location > https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/reviews/216167/?api_format=json > Cache-Control max-age=0 > Keep-Alive timeout=15, max=99 > Connection Keep-Alive > Content-Type application/vnd.reviewboard.org.review-draft+json > Request Headersview source > Host rb.corp.linkedin.com > User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) > Gecko/20110421 Red Hat/3.6.17-1.el6_0 Firefox/3.6.17 > Accept application/json, text/javascript, */* > Accept-Language en-us,en;q=0.5 > Accept-Encoding gzip,deflate > Accept-Charset ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 > Keep-Alive 115 > Connection keep-alive > X-Requested-With XMLHttpRequest > Referer https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/r/138009/diff/ > Cookie bcookie="v=2&473ac65f-38cc-41cb-ba42-2e214a904cb8"; > __utma=23068709.1633103721.1349950434.1354851484.1361500557.8; > __utmz=23068709.1349950434.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none); > __qca=P0-98666925-128840575; csrftoken=79e3f5e8b0223aea90c79ddda8f602de; > rbsessionid=839445e871ec4cb9d1a1ff7facda114a; > __utma=114128021.1917358441.1348518312.1358570796.1360023043.16; > __utmz=114128021.1348518312.1.1.utmcsr=iwww.corp.linkedin.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/wiki/cf/display/PRT/Unite%20Hiring%20Project; > __utmv=23068709.user; __utmc=114128021; > sdsc=1%3A1SZM1shxDNbLt36wZwCgPgvN58iw%3D; lang="v=2&lang=en-us&c="; > __utmc=23068709; lror="profile.v2.override=A&"; collapsediffs=True; > _lipt="0_3SIWY4ytFDXTUqK2n4vRWMF1-ZezVw7mZXqvIT81hzx-igiaD4PKuvRHr8JVfzmiAQjjsnaSv-d9A9Pw_VGq54xI4vhhGGWbacnbnjtSt7Ir9FVEAjumRIiRNKbJTJBcZ5dw8DhP_RrOAkII527ioet-ATbfo0Xm7eMlePj2--Sm5-eBKpV1LxOwO3O1ogORYNaHZhTO_5azwGe6wgnRUqdtQ-YypcEVNlQZLxoBx205GWFVRKuLP9ApqSmvVGZhZ71uxq4cPzTEOJc_cirqBFoYJVpaoEhGjuLspJjEHuc" > > > GET 216167?api_format=json > https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/api/review-requests/138009/reviews/216167/?api_format=json > > 200 OK > > rb.corp.linkedin.com > > 412 B > > > 21ms > > ParamsHeadersPostPutResponseCacheHTML > Response Headersview source > Date Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT > Server Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) > Content-Length 412 > Content-Language en-us > Content-Encoding gzip > Expires Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT > Vary Accept,Cookie,Accept-Language,Accept-Encoding > Last-Modified Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:32:04 GMT > Cache-Control max-age=0 > Keep-Alive timeout=15, max=99 > Connection Keep-Alive > Content-Type application/vnd.reviewboard.org.review+xml > Request Headersview source > Host rb.corp.linkedin.com > User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) > Gecko/20110421 Red Hat/3.6.17-1.el6_0 Firefox/3.6.17 > Accept text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 > Accept-Language en-us,en;q=0.5 > Accept-Encoding gzip,deflate > Accept-Charset ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 > Keep-Alive 115 > Connection keep-alive > Referer https://rb.corp.linkedin.com/r/138009/diff/ > Cookie bcookie="v=2&473ac65f-38cc-41cb-ba42-2e214a904cb8"; > __utma=23068709.1633103721.1349950434.1354851484.1361500557.8; > __utmz=23068709.1349950434.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none); > __qca=P0-98666925-128840575; csrftoken=79e3f5e8b0223aea90c79ddda8f602de; > rbsessionid=839445e871ec4cb9d1a1ff7facda114a; > __utma=114128021.1917358441.1348518312.1358570796.1360023043.16; > __utmz=114128021.1348518312.1.1.utmcsr=iwww.corp.linkedin.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/wiki/cf/display/PRT/Unite%20Hiring%20Project; > __utmv=23068709.u
Mass re-assign of review requests?
We recently had someone leave our team, and I would like to reassign all of the review requests currently assigned to him to someone new. Is there a way to do that without opening all the unclosed requests one by one, checking to see if he was assigned, and editing the "people" field one at a time? Thanks, --Paul -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: RB migration- non-existent revisions?
On Monday, February 25, 2013 2:17:07 PM UTC-5, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > On 2013-02-25 11:54, age...@themactionfaction.com wrote: > > I am migrating from RB 1.6.3 on SQLite and local git repos to RB 1.7.5 > on > > PostgreSQL and remote git repos and cgit. I have successfully migrated > the > > data and reviewboard 1.7.5 is running, however, the diff viewer is > broken. > > It seems that RB is passing non-existent SHA hashes to cgit so cgit > always > > returns the latest version of the file. The resultant error is: > > > This isn't a commit ID, but a blob ID. > > If you use 'git show ', you should get a dump of the file contents. > > It sounds like your 'raw file URL' for your repository is not set > correctly. Make sure it is set to a template from which cgit will accept > a *blob ID* (not a commit ID) to retrieve a specific version of a file. > Thanks for the pointer, Matthew. We are using cgit 0.9.0.3. It seems that if I use http://cgit/cgit/repo/blob/?id2=, I always get the latest version of the file on the master. cgit seems to ignore id2 if the blob hash is not found in the repository. However, if I switch to ?id=, then all the diffs seem to work. I found that you had answered a similar question here: http://www.mail-archive.com/reviewboard@googlegroups.com/msg10186.html I looked at the cgit source and the difference is id=>sha1 and id2=>sha2. In cmd.c: cgit_print_blob(ctx->qry.sha1, ctx->qry.path, ctx->qry.head); clearly indicates that only sha1 is used to output blobs which implies use of "id" and not "id2". Why do the reviewboard docs indicate use of "id2", then? -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
git short hashes cannot work with remote repository
Hello, we have encountered what seems to be a bug in both reviewboard and cgit when using rb with a remote git repo via cgit. This is due to a migration from local to remote git repos. Some of our reviews include short git hashes (from uploaded diffs, I assume), which rb then complains about: Diff currently unavailable. *Error:* The revision '1be9c1d' for 'abc isn't in a valid format: The SHA1 is too short. Make sure the diff is generated with `git diff --full-index`. I thought this might be easy to fix in rb, but it seems cgit blows up (500) on the short hashes, too. So, it looks like I have three options: 1) hack rb and cgit to support short hashes 2) use local repos again 3) expand the short hashes to full hashes in the database Unless there are other suggestions, I would like to investigate option 3. Could someone point me to which table in the database I should be looking at? Cheers, M -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: git short hashes cannot work with remote repository
You'd want to look at the source_revision field in the diffviewer_filediff table. Alternatively, if you'd like to do it with a management command or the django shell, it's the source_revision field in the reviewboard.diffviewer.models.FileDiff model. -David On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, wrote: > Hello, we have encountered what seems to be a bug in both reviewboard and > cgit when using rb with a remote git repo via cgit. This is due to a > migration from local to remote git repos. > > Some of our reviews include short git hashes (from uploaded diffs, I > assume), which rb then complains about: > > Diff currently unavailable. *Error:* The revision '1be9c1d' for 'abc > isn't in a valid format: The SHA1 is too short. Make sure the diff is > generated with `git diff --full-index`. > > I thought this might be easy to fix in rb, but it seems cgit blows up > (500) on the short hashes, too. > > So, it looks like I have three options: > > 1) hack rb and cgit to support short hashes > 2) use local repos again > 3) expand the short hashes to full hashes in the database > > Unless there are other suggestions, I would like to investigate option 3. > Could someone point me to which table in the database I should be looking > at? > > Cheers, > M > > -- > 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 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Mass re-assign of review requests?
Paul, You could write a django management command (or use the django shell) to do this. It would require some knowledge of how the django ORM works, but if there's a lot of them, it might be faster. -David On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Paul Lynch wrote: > We recently had someone leave our team, and I would like to reassign all > of the review requests currently assigned to him to someone new. Is there > a way to do that without opening all the unclosed requests one by one, > checking to see if he was assigned, and editing the "people" field one at a > time? > > Thanks, > --Paul > > -- > 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 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Disable clicking fields to edit
Hi, Is there a way I can disable the feature that automatically starts to edit a field when I click on it? I want to have to click the pencil icon to edit a field. Thanks. -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
