Re: Git style mercurial diffs with file renames don't work
I submitted the patch that enabled Mercurial rename support a few years ago. For the most part it works well but there are definitely cases where it doesn't and I haven't been able to pin them all down. I think it may be something to do with whether the original file was added or changed in the parent diff, in which case the master repo may not know about it. I also know there's a bug where if a file has been renamed but there is no change to its content, the diff doesn't display correctly. Colin On 9/16/2014 6:39 AM, Sara Rayburn wrote: Hi, We have a problem where the diff viewer for diffs with rename operations. We use mercurial, and output the diff in git style. Here's a trivial example diff file: diff --git a/include/CCvideo/configUI.H b/include/CCvideo/configUITest.H rename from include/CCvideo/configUI.H rename to include/CCvideo/configUITest.H In the Diff summary section is: include/CCvideo/configUITest.H http://reviewboard.cctechnol.com/r/4112/diff/#0 Was include/CCvideo/configUI.H So I guess the rename works up to a point, but this is the error in the view diff page: The file 'include/CCvideo/configUI.H' (rUNKNOWN) could not be found in the repository This may be a bug in the software, a temporary outage, or an issue with the format of your diff. Please try again, and if you still have trouble, contact support http://reviewboard.cctechnol.com/support/. With traceback as follows: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py, line 236, in get renderer = self.create_renderer(context, *args, **kwargs) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/reviews/views.py, line 1088, in create_renderer *args, **kwargs) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py, line 328, in create_renderer self.diff_file = self._get_requested_diff_file() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py, line 369, in _get_requested_diff_file request=self.request) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 383, in populate_diff_chunks chunks = generator.get_chunks() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py, line 153, in get_chunks large_data=True) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/Djblets-0.8.10-py2.6.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py, line 111, in cache_memoize data = lookup_callable() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py, line 152, in lambda lambda: list(self._get_chunks_uncached()), File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py, line 159, in _get_chunks_uncached old = get_original_file(self.filediff, self.request, encoding_list) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 169, in get_original_file request=request) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py, line 291, in get_file large_data=True)[0] File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/Djblets-0.8.10-py2.6.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py, line 111, in cache_memoize data = lookup_callable() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py, line 290, in lambda request)], File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py, line 456, in _get_file_uncached data = self.get_scmtool().get_file(path, revision) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py, line 43, in get_file return self.client.cat_file(path, six.text_type(revision)) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.7-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py, line 264, in cat_file raise FileNotFoundError(path, rev) FileNotFoundError: The file 'include/CCvideo/configUI.H' (rUNKNOWN) could not be found in the repository -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- 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 mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons:
Re: Review Board 2.x and hg postreview
Following those instructions exactly I
get an error message of "The specified diff file is empty", which
is not surprising since file2.txt was never added to the
repository.
If I do "hg add file2.txt" before the first qnew on the other
hand, "hg postreview" works fine and correctly shows Line2 being
added to file2.txt.
If it is still breaking for you even with the hg add, can you let
me know what versions of mercurial, ReviewBoard and the
reviewboard extension you're using?
If you're using the latest versions and it still doesn't work,
please send me the output of
hg postreview --debug --apitrace
Thanks,
Colin
On 6/4/2014 7:15 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Colin
Caughie c.caug...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is something I'd like to get to the
bottom of though so if you have any further
information,
e.g. what's going on in the particular
diffs and parent diffs that cause this issue,
I'd be glad to take a look at it.
I've managed to recreate the problem such that
'rbt post' works and 'hg postreview' fails:
first, on the remote server create a new
repository with "hg init". Then, in Windows
(with Python 2.7), run:
hg clone repo rbtest01
cd rbtest01
echo Line1 file1.txt
hg add file1.txt
hg commit -m "initial commit"
hg push
echo Line1 file2.txt
hg qnew first
echo Line2 file2.txt
hg qnew second
hg postreview
If you don't create file1.txt and try and create a review with
an empty repo then 'rbt post' fails too, with:
1 outgoing changesets between remote and base.
Running: hg parents --hidden -r 00d28ac9c6c6
--template {node|short} --config
extensions.rbtoolsnormalize=C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\
rbtools-0.6-py2.7.egg\rbtools\helpers\hgext.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python27\Scripts\rbt-script.py", line 9, in
module
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.6', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
File
"C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.6-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\main.py",
line 134, in main
command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
File
"C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.6-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\__init__.py",
line 422, in run_from_argv
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File
"C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.6-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\post.py",
line 717, in main
revisions = self.get_revisions()
File
"C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.6-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\post.py",
line 619, in get_revisions
self._revisions =
self.tool.parse_revision_spec(self.cmd_args)
File
"C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.6-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\mercurial.py",
line 267, in parse_revision_spec
'--template', '{node|short}']).split()[0]
IndexError: list index out of range
--
Bruce
--
Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
---
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/
---
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
---
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/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.x and hg postreview
Ah - yes, you have to use the -o option to tell ReviewBoard to figure out the parent diff base by doing the equivalent of hg outgoing. For this to work you need to make sure that your default push repository is the same as the one that ReviewBoard sees; if it isn't you can use -O instead. (hg help postreview has all of this information.) --master also works but means you have to figure it out yourself. Apologies for not thinking of that earlier. I have it configured in my default args for the postreview command so I never actually have to type it. Colin On 06/04/2014 4:36 PM, Bruce Cran wrote: I'm using Mercurial 3.0, ReviewBoard 2.0.1 and as of today, the latest code from https://bitbucket.org/ccaughie/hgreviewboard . I did forget to add hg add file2.txt to the list of steps, but I ran it during testing. Should the code figure out which revision to use for the parent diff base? It works if I specify --master qparent. -- Bruce On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Colin Caughie c.caug...@gmail.com mailto:c.caug...@gmail.com wrote: Following those instructions exactly I get an error message of The specified diff file is empty, which is not surprising since file2.txt was never added to the repository. If I do hg add file2.txt before the first qnew on the other hand, hg postreview works fine and correctly shows Line2 being added to file2.txt. If it is still breaking for you even with the hg add, can you let me know what versions of mercurial, ReviewBoard and the reviewboard extension you're using? If you're using the latest versions and it still doesn't work, please send me the output of hg postreview --debug --apitrace -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- 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 mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- 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/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.x and hg postreview
I and my team are still using hg postreview daily, including after upgrading to RB 2.0.1, and I'm still maintaining it as and when I have time (although I admit I've fallen behind on some of the requests in the issues list). I haven't worked much with RBTools; I'm sure it works fine but what we like about postreview is that it follows the same syntax and logic as other Mercurial commands, which means you don't have to learn a new tool. It also integrates with TortoiseHg, which is handy for those who prefer a GUI. As I mentioned in the bug report, and as Sara noted, the problem you're experiencing does not seem to be specific to hg postreview and does not seem to have changed since the upgrade to 2.x. It is something I'd like to get to the bottom of though so if you have any further information, e.g. what's going on in the particular diffs and parent diffs that cause this issue, I'd be glad to take a look at it. Colin On 06/02/2014 11:21 AM, Bruce Cran wrote: I'm investigating upgrading our installation to Review Board 2.x and one issue I've come across is that with the existing code, hg postreview doesn't work correctly. I've submitted a ticket to https://bitbucket.org/ccaughie/hgreviewboard, but I was wondering - are people still planning to use the hg postreview extension, or are you all switching to the rbt client? -- Bruce -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- 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 mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- 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/d/optout.
Re: 1.7.9 regression with hg parent diffs
This is issue 2791 - https://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2971. I have a fix pending (http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/4121/) but I haven't yet had time to address Christian's feedback on the patch. It's unlikely I'll be able to spend any time on this this until about 2 weeks from now, but you could try downloading the existing patch and manually applying it to your local install as a temporary measure (be sure to back up your install before doing so!). Colin On 6/10/2013 3:36 AM, Bruce Cran wrote: I've tried restarting memcached, but it didn't help. reviewboard.log just shows that it's getting a 404 from Hg web server when trying to fetch the parent revision - which makes sense since it hasn't been committed - e.g. the patches are: parent: diff -r 1 -r 2 file1.txt --- a/file1.txtFri Jun 07 12:15:29 2013 -0600 +++ b/file1.txtFri Jun 07 21:02:26 2013 +0100 [diff contents] review_diff: diff -r 2 -r 3 file2.txt --- a/file2.txtFri Jun 07 12:15:29 2013 -0600 +++ b/file2.txtFri Jun 07 21:02:26 2013 +0100 [diff contents] Only r1 exists in the repository. I've just replicated the problem on the demo server - see http://demo.reviewboard.org/r/12105/diff/#index_header . Since people only started complaining about this a few hours after I upgraded to 1.7.9 I'm /assuming/ it's new. -- Bruce On 10 June 2013 10:56, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi Bruce, There's only two change to Mercurial since 1.7.6. One has to do with fixes to the Mercurial version checking. That fix, though, has to do with handling the different ways of checking the Mercurial version and working around a breakage we had in some setups, and I wouldn't expect it to have an impact on file existence checking in any way. The other validates the repository during repo creation, and catches errors accessing the repository during file fetching. It would show you a different error than what you're getting, though. Can you repeat the problem and look in reviewboard.log to see if there's any interesting error messages? One other thing, just to try it. Can you clear your memcached and try again? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Cran bruce.c...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Christian, I upgraded from 1.7.6, and this breaks both when using RBTools and when uploading patches via the Web interface. I've not upgraded RBTools, but someone else tried using the newer version and found it was still broken. -- Bruce Cran On 10 June 2013 09:19, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi Bruce, Can you tell me what version of Review Board you were using before? Also, did you upgrade RBTools before this broke? I don't see any changes to our Mercurial support in the past two releases of Review Board, aside from one to do verification when adding a new repository. It's possible some code changed in RBTool 0.5.1 that broke this, though, if you're running that. A quick way to check would be to downgrade RBTools to 0.5.0 and try again. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Bruce Cran bruce.c...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be a regression in 1.7.9 with mercurial parent diffs: if a file is modified in the review diff that wasn't changed in the parent diff, then Review Board generates the error Error: The file 'file2.txt' (r12345678) could not be found in the repository. -- Bruce Cran -- 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. -- -- Bruce
AD authentication not available after upgrade to 1.7.2
I just upgraded a site from RB 1.6.3 to 1.7.2. The site was using Active Directory authentication, but after the upgrade this no longer works. Moreover, in the Authentication Settings admin page, the Authentication Method dropdown has only two options: Standard Registration and Legacy Authentication Module. According to the docs there should be other options including Active Directory, but these seem to be missing. Anyone have any ideas how I can re-enable this? -- 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
Re: AD authentication not available after upgrade to 1.7.2
Thanks for your quick response. I figured it out (kind of) - the log
files were reporting an incorrect version of Pygments:
raise VersionConflict(dist,req) # XXX put more info here
VersionConflict: (Pygments 1.4
(/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Pygments-1.4-py2.6.egg),
Requirement.parse('Pygments=1.5'))
I upgraded Pygments using easy_install to the latest version and all is
well now. What's strange though is that I already had the correct
version of Pygments in the virtualenv in which RB was running, so I'm
not sure why I had to upgrade it in the global Python install as well.
On 01/20/2013 11:09 AM, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Colin,
Sounds like an installation issue. Can you tell me how you performed the
upgrade? RPMs, easy_install, pip?
Christian
On Jan 20, 2013, at 10:46, Colin Caughie c.caug...@gmail.com wrote:
I just upgraded a site from RB 1.6.3 to 1.7.2. The site was using Active Directory authentication,
but after the upgrade this no longer works. Moreover, in the Authentication Settings admin page,
the Authentication Method dropdown has only two options: Standard Registration and
Legacy Authentication Module. According to the docs there should be other options
including Active Directory, but these seem to be missing.
Anyone have any ideas how I can re-enable this?
--
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
--
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
Re: Question about using ReviewBoard with Mercurial
On 15/11/2011 16:50, mike wrote: The repository path /home/mwillis/work/dev is not in the list of known repositories on the server. After looking around in the post-review docs, I found the --parent parameter, which seems to be what I'm looking for. It warns This only works with Git right now, but I was hoping that maybe the docs were just outdated. Alas, it gives me the same error: That doesn't sound like an issue with the --parent option, it sounds like a configuration issue that is preventing either post-review or ReviewBoard itself from finding the repository. mwillis@mwillis:~/work/dev-15600$ post-review --parent $NAME_OF_OUR_CENTRAL_REPO ... The repository path /home/mwillis/work/dev is not in the list of known repositories on the server. Now I'm assuming that the problem is just that --parent doesn't support mercurial. Is that correct? If so, I'm possibly willing to submit a patch to get it working. To use ReviewBoard with your Mercurial workflow you will probably need to use parent diffs (assuming you want to have changes reviewed before pushing to your central repository). I can't comment on post-review's support for this as I've never used it, but you may want to try the ReviewBoard extension for Mercurial, which does support parent diffs and largely automates the process of submitting them. See http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ReviewboardExtension -- 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
Re: Still having 1.5 api authentication issues.
On 16/11/2010 18:56, Jeff wrote: (This is a follow up to this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/browse_thread/thread/83744baa3a99da0e/cc641214ed414a85?lnk=gstq=authentication#cc641214ed414a85, but I've made a lot of changes). I have a fresh reviewboard 1.5 install. I cannot get authentication to the web api working at all. I have a superuser account setup. (I get the same results with the admin account). I've tried a perl script, but I've fallen back to the web browser and wget. I'm trying: This sounds like exactly the same issue I was seeing (see http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/browse_thread/thread/1f8ce0c87588c428). Unfortunately I never got to the bottom of it; it happened on my test install but not on our production install so I stopped looking at it. Colin Latest News at: http://www.indigovision.com/news2010.php -- 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
RE: Can't authenticate using API 2.0
Hi Jan, 1) I couldn't tell you, it wasn't me who set up the server. I'll try to find out from my colleague who did. 2) When I log in using the login page using my AD password I see the following line repeated many times: 2010-11-06 09:50:10,143 - DEBUG - Search root dc=indigovision,dc=com When I login using my SHA1 password, or type the wrong password, I see the following once: 2010-11-06 09:42:23,967 - WARNING - Active Directory: Failed login for user cfc When I try to access the API URLs I don't see anything at all. Do I maybe need to increase the logging level? Thanks, Colin -Original Message- From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewbo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jan Koprowski Sent: 06 November 2010 06:29 To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Can't authenticate using API 2.0 Hi, Few questions. 1) While rb-site install there is user created. Is authentication login works fine for this user? 2) When You login as AD user: what do You see in logs when You login using login page, and what if You use API? On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi Colin, Sorry for my subsequent less-than-speedy reply. Long day. I don't know that AD would be the cause, but it's worth considering. I would like to see the Wireshark trace, just to see if I can simulate the same problem. Feel free to just e-mail me that directly. Thanks! Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Colin Caughie c.caug...@indigovision.com wrote: Hi Christian, Thanks for the speedy reply. I've tried with the FQDN and IP address as well as the plain hostname and I get the same result. The wireshark trace shows that it's using Basic Authentication as described in the API docs. (I can send you the wireshark trace if you think it would help). The server is running Apache 2.2.16 on Fedora 14. We imported all of the configuration and data from our 1.0.9 installation in order to test the new version. It uses Active Directory as the authentication back-end. Could that be part of the problem? I changing my account to use a sha1 password instead but it made no difference. Colin From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewbo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Christian Hammond Sent: 05 November 2010 08:09 To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Can't authenticate using API 2.0 Hi Colin, I just tried to repro it here, and it works fine. We'll have to do some investigation... When you try this, is it with a fully-qualified domain, or just something more like ourserver? If the latter, see what happens when you try a FQDN or an IP address. What type of authentication is being used on there? And what web server? If the above doesn't work, it would help to set up a development install and to try it there in order to rule out the possibility of it being the web server. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Colin Caughie c.caug...@indigovision.com wrote: Hi, I'm playing with the new ReviewBoard API with a test installation of RB 1.5, and can't seem to get basic authentication to work. I'm testing it just by typing http://ourserver/api/info/; into Firefox, entering my username and password when it asks, but I keep getting 401 UNAUTHORIZED responses. I've taken a Wireshark trace and it looks like the client is doing the right thing. Moreover I can log in fine using the normal login page, which seems to use a different mechanism. (After logging in from the login page I can access the API resources because it uses the cookie thereafter.) Is there anything I need to do to get this to work? Thanks, Colin Latest News at: http://www.indigovision.com/news2010.php -- 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 -- 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
RE: Can't authenticate using API 2.0
1) While rb-site install there is user created. Is authentication login works fine for this user? 1) I couldn't tell you, it wasn't me who set up the server. I'll try to find out from my colleague who did. I got this information and tried again with the username and password that were set up during installation. Authentication failed in the same way as before. Colin Latest News at: http://www.indigovision.com/news2010.php -- 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
Can't authenticate using API 2.0
Hi, I'm playing with the new ReviewBoard API with a test installation of RB 1.5, and can't seem to get basic authentication to work. I'm testing it just by typing http://ourserver/api/info/; into Firefox, entering my username and password when it asks, but I keep getting 401 UNAUTHORIZED responses. I've taken a Wireshark trace and it looks like the client is doing the right thing. Moreover I can log in fine using the normal login page, which seems to use a different mechanism. (After logging in from the login page I can access the API resources because it uses the cookie thereafter.) Is there anything I need to do to get this to work? Thanks, Colin Latest News at: http://www.indigovision.com/news2010.php -- 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
RE: Can't authenticate using API 2.0
Hi Christian, Thanks for the speedy reply. I've tried with the FQDN and IP address as well as the plain hostname and I get the same result. The wireshark trace shows that it's using Basic Authentication as described in the API docs. (I can send you the wireshark trace if you think it would help). The server is running Apache 2.2.16 on Fedora 14. We imported all of the configuration and data from our 1.0.9 installation in order to test the new version. It uses Active Directory as the authentication back-end. Could that be part of the problem? I changing my account to use a sha1 password instead but it made no difference. Colin From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewbo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Christian Hammond Sent: 05 November 2010 08:09 To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Can't authenticate using API 2.0 Hi Colin, I just tried to repro it here, and it works fine. We'll have to do some investigation... When you try this, is it with a fully-qualified domain, or just something more like ourserver? If the latter, see what happens when you try a FQDN or an IP address. What type of authentication is being used on there? And what web server? If the above doesn't work, it would help to set up a development install and to try it there in order to rule out the possibility of it being the web server. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.commailto:chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Colin Caughie c.caug...@indigovision.commailto:c.caug...@indigovision.com wrote: Hi, I'm playing with the new ReviewBoard API with a test installation of RB 1.5, and can't seem to get basic authentication to work. I'm testing it just by typing http://ourserver/api/info/; into Firefox, entering my username and password when it asks, but I keep getting 401 UNAUTHORIZED responses. I've taken a Wireshark trace and it looks like the client is doing the right thing. Moreover I can log in fine using the normal login page, which seems to use a different mechanism. (After logging in from the login page I can access the API resources because it uses the cookie thereafter.) Is there anything I need to do to get this to work? Thanks, Colin Latest News at: http://www.indigovision.com/news2010.php -- 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.commailto:reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- 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 scanned for viruses and spam by indigovision If you consider this email spam, please forward to s...@emailfiltering.com -- 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
