Re: Annotating Reviews

[Paul Fee]

I've recently been posting large diffs for colleagues to review and had the 
same thoughts about being able to set the order of the files and perhaps 
annotate the code for the benefit of those reviewing my work.

I'm currently using RB2.0.  Would upgrading to RB3.0 help or are there 
plans to enhance this aspect of reviewboard in a future release?

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Review Board Community" 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 turns 10 today!

[Paul Fee]

Fantastic achievement Christian, David and everyone else that has 
contributed.  We use Reviewboard on a daily basis and it helps greatly with 
getting developers to engage in the review process.

Well done and keep up the good work.

Thank you,
Paul

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

That's great news, I had been wondering if Fedora/RHEL users would be 
seeing RB2.5 soon.

On Fedora, it looks like the Django packages have moved ahead to 1.8, but 
RB still needs 1.6.  Hence ReviewBoard has disappeared from Fedora from F22 
onwards :(

Nice to see that the situation on RHEL+EPEL is better.  For users on that 
platform, what can we expect when installing the upgrade?  If I already 
have a 2.0.18 installation and a site populated with users/reviews/comments 
etc. will this migrate without effort up to RB 2.5.2 or is anything else 
required, e.g. database backup/restore?

Thanks,
Paul

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 12:05:06 AM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Hello, folks! It's time for a big update. As many of you are probably 
> aware, I maintain the RPMs of Review Board that live in Fedora's EPEL 
> project[1] (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux).
>
> For some time now, EPEL 7 (which provides community-supported add-on 
> software for RHEL 7 and CentOS 7) has been providing Review Board 2.0.x 
> packages. However, time passes and I now feel that it's worth upgrading 
> EPEL 7 to carry 2.5.2 with all of the enhancements and bugfixes that this 
> entails.
>
> This is a pretty major update to the server-side of things, so I'd really 
> like to get some serious testing performed if possible before I push this 
> out to the stable repository. (Getting testing for updates has been a 
> problem in the past, which is why updates tend to trail the upstream 
> releases by at least two weeks; EPEL has a policy that it must remain in 
> the testing repository for at least that time unless it receives positive 
> feedback from people testing it).
>
> So, how can you help? The simplest way to do so would be to install the 
> new RPMs on your RHEL/CentOS 7 systems by installing the EPEL 7 repository 
> and then running:
> `yum install --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` or `yum update 
> --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` if you have an existing 
> installation. (Note: this was just submitted for the testing repository, so 
> it may take up to 48 hours to reach your local mirror, though usually less 
> than 24).
>
> Then play around with it; test that it upgrades cleanly and that you can 
> create new sites in your preferred configuration. Once you have feedback to 
> provide (positive *or* negative), please create a Fedora Account at  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ and then log in at 
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b8671a8638 and 
> use the feedback buttons and comment field to let me know how it went.
>
> Warning: if I get no feedback at all, I'm just going to push this to 
> stable at the end of two weeks, so if you don't want any surprises at your 
> next stable update, please help me out here.
>
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.5 beta 2 is out!

[Paul Fee]

Hi Christian,

I occasionally see bugs when using "rbt post" to push up multiple drafts 
before I publish.  I suspect that a previous draft is cached server side, 
browser cache clearing and memcached restarts fail to fix the issue.  
Repeat use of "rbt post" following local code changes doesn't always result 
in visible changes on the interdiff web page.  I haven't been able to 
reliably reproduce this and can't share the specific diffs in question as 
the code is private.

Also, I've seen occasions where I can see the change in the side-by-side 
diff viewer (e.g. lines deleted), however the lines are not always colour 
coded to highlight the change as expected.

I'm using RB 2.0.18.

Sorry, I just noticed I previously asked if the 2.5 interdiff changes were 
relevant for RB1.7, I should have asked if they were relevant to RB2.0 as 
that's the version I've had interdiff viewing problems with.

Thanks,
Paul

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:35:30 PM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> These fixes are not. Interdiffs were largely rewritten since 1.7 and 
> behave differently. We've had further changes since 2.0 (though we may 
> backport some of these fixes).
>
> Are there particular fixes you're interested in?
>
> Christain
>
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com 
> Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Paul Fee  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> I see this line in the 2.5 Beta 2 release notes:
>>
>> * Diff Viewer - Fixed some problems with interdiffs resulting from 
>> rebased changes
>>
>> Are these fixes applicable to the 1.7 release branch?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:54:36 PM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM Christian Hammond <
>>> chri...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> We've put out the second beta of Review Board 2.5. We're hoping to wrap 
>>>> this release cycle up soon, get an RC out the door in the next two weeks 
>>>> and then ship the final 2.5 release shortly after. We'd love your testing 
>>>> to help make this happen.
>>>>
>>>> You can read our announcement, complete with screenshots, here: 
>>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/07/20/review-board-2-5-beta-2-out/
>>>>
>>>> We also have an announcements mailing list available, for those not on 
>>>> it: https://www.reviewboard.org/mailing-lists/
>>>>
>>>> And as a reminder, we're posting the latest development news, feature 
>>>> additions, design ideas, etc. over at the Review Board ChangeLog: 
>>>> http://changelog.assembly.com/reviewboard
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've also created a new COPR repository for Fedora 21+ and RHEL/CentOS 
>>> 7. You can now download and install Review Board 2.5 beta 2 for evaluation 
>>> on those platforms. Browse to 
>>> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/reviewboard2.5/ and 
>>> install the appropriate repository file into /etc/yum.repos.d, then do 'yum 
>>> install ReviewBoard'. If you already have Review Board on the target 
>>> system, back it up and then just do 'yum update ReviewBoard' (after having 
>>> installed the repo file, of course).
>>>
>>> Yum may prompt you to accept the signing key for these new packages; 
>>> that key should be:
>>>  f836 fa56 6e04 caa8 832f 6efd fa1d d63c 353c 6a28
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
>> https://rbcommons.com/
>> Happy user? Let us know! https://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...@googlegroups.com .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.5 beta 2 is out!

[Paul Fee]

Hi Christian,

I see this line in the 2.5 Beta 2 release notes:

* Diff Viewer - Fixed some problems with interdiffs resulting from rebased 
changes

Are these fixes applicable to the 1.7 release branch?

Thanks,
Paul

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:54:36 PM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM Christian Hammond  > wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> We've put out the second beta of Review Board 2.5. We're hoping to wrap 
>> this release cycle up soon, get an RC out the door in the next two weeks 
>> and then ship the final 2.5 release shortly after. We'd love your testing 
>> to help make this happen.
>>
>> You can read our announcement, complete with screenshots, here: 
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/07/20/review-board-2-5-beta-2-out/
>>
>> We also have an announcements mailing list available, for those not on 
>> it: https://www.reviewboard.org/mailing-lists/
>>
>> And as a reminder, we're posting the latest development news, feature 
>> additions, design ideas, etc. over at the Review Board ChangeLog: 
>> http://changelog.assembly.com/reviewboard
>>
>>
> I've also created a new COPR repository for Fedora 21+ and RHEL/CentOS 7. 
> You can now download and install Review Board 2.5 beta 2 for evaluation on 
> those platforms. Browse to 
> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/reviewboard2.5/ and install 
> the appropriate repository file into /etc/yum.repos.d, then do 'yum install 
> ReviewBoard'. If you already have Review Board on the target system, back 
> it up and then just do 'yum update ReviewBoard' (after having installed the 
> repo file, of course).
>
> Yum may prompt you to accept the signing key for these new packages; that 
> key should be:
>  f836 fa56 6e04 caa8 832f 6efd fa1d d63c 353c 6a28
>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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.

RB 2.0.17 - Interdiff fails to highlight deleted code

[Paul Fee]

Hi all,

I'm using ReviewBoard 2.0.17 and see unexpected behaviour in the diff 
viewer.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Change a few files (I'm using SVN)
2. rbt post 
3. Publish review
4. Delete a group of lines from one of the files already changed.
5. rbt post -r  
6. Publish review
7. Review entire diff: http://reviewboard/r/9581/diff/2/ - Result: PASS
8. Review first interdiff: http://reviewboard/r/9581/diff/1/ - Result: PASS
9. Review second interdiff: http://reviewboard/r/9581/diff/1-2/ - Result: 
FAIL

In the second interdiff, RB states that the file contains only whitespace 
changes, this is incorrect as lines have been deleted.

Expanding the entire file, the contain on the left and right diff panels is 
correct, I can see that the deleted lines have gone, however they're not 
highlighted in red as expected.

I don't think this is related to caching as the following steps had no 
effect, the second interdiff consistently shows the same result.

* systemctl restart memcached
* systemctl restart httpd
* View second interdiff with different browsers (Firefox and Chromium), 
both show same results, hence not a browser cache issue.

I'm running ReviewBoard on CentOS7 using EPEL packages.

Let me know if you need more information to help recreate or fix this bug.

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more

[Paul Fee]

Hi Christian,

It wasn't a browser cache issue as the incorrect results were visible after 
switch between multiple browsers (using independent browser caches), 
therefore the problem must have been on the server.

I tried to reproduce this again today, but wasn't able to - you could take 
that as good news ;)

When I previously saw the bug, the review was created with 2.0.15 and then 
continued to have more diff sets added after the server had been upgraded 
to 2.0.17.  I don't know whether that aspect is relevant.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this and if I can reproduce it reliably I'll 
let you know.  In the mean time, ignore this bug report.

Thanks,
Paul

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, 
>
> Thanks for reporting this. I went through our caching code, and I'm not 
> really sure why this is happening off-hand. Were you able to fix this by 
> clearing your browser cache, or did you have to restart memcached? 
>
> Christian 
>
> --   
> Christian Hammond - chri...@beanbaginc.com
> Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org   
> Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com 
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Paul Fee > 
> Reply: revie...@googlegroups.com   >> 
> Date: June 18, 2015 at 9:45:59 AM 
> To: revie...@googlegroups.com   >> 
> Subject:  Re: Review Board 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and 
> more 
>
> > Hi Christian, 
> >   
> > I'm seeing some buggy behaviour around the caching of diffs. It looks 
> like 
> > a server side problem as the buggy diff content persists even if I 
> reload 
> > with CTRL-F5 or switch browsers (e.g. firefox to chromium). 
> >   
> > Steps to reproduce: 
> >   
> > 1. Change some code, I happen to be using SVN. 
> > 2. Upload diff to existing review. 
> > $ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist 
> > 3. View the draft interdiff, all it ok at this point. 
> > 4. Change the code some more without publishing draft changes. 
> > 5. Upload diff again, should change content of draft diff. 
> > $ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist 
> > 6. View the draft interdiff - BUG - diff content on web page is from 
> first 
> > upload, changes from second "rbt post" are not displayed. 
> >   
> > From the 2.0.16 release notes, "If a diff has already been viewed once, 
> by 
> > anyone, it will be quicker to retrieve and display.". I suspect the 
> draft 
> > is being cached. A blunt fix could be to avoid caching diffs for drafts. 
> > A better fix would be to invalidate caches for draft diffs when a new 
> > diffset is uploaded. 
> >   
> > Hopefully those steps are clear enough for you to reproduce the issue. 
> Let 
> > me know if you need more information. 
> >   
> > Thanks, 
> > Paul 
> >   
> > -- 
> > Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ 
> > Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
> https://rbcommons.com/ 
> > Happy user? Let us know! https://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...@googlegroups.com . 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> >   
>
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more

[Paul Fee]

Hi Christian,

I'm seeing some buggy behaviour around the caching of diffs.  It looks like 
a server side problem as the buggy diff content persists even if I reload 
with CTRL-F5 or switch browsers (e.g. firefox to chromium).

Steps to reproduce:

1. Change some code, I happen to be using SVN.
2. Upload diff to existing review.
$ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist
3. View the draft interdiff, all it ok at this point.
4. Change the code some more without publishing draft changes.
5. Upload diff again, should change content of draft diff.
$ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist
6. View the draft interdiff - BUG - diff content on web page is from first 
upload, changes from second "rbt post" are not displayed.

>From the 2.0.16 release notes, "If a diff has already been viewed once, by 
anyone, it will be quicker to retrieve and display.".  I suspect the draft 
is being cached.  A blunt fix could be to avoid caching diffs for drafts.  
A better fix would be to invalidate caches for draft diffs when a new 
diffset is uploaded.

Hopefully those steps are clear enough for you to reproduce the issue.  Let 
me know if you need more information.

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

The 2.0.17 packages for EPEL7 worked as expected, karma dispensed.

Thanks to all those that contributed to 2.0.16 and 2.0.17, I especially 
liked the fixes to the interdiff version selector as that was bugging me.  
The performance improvements are also nice to see.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

EPEL7 upgrade didn't work for me.  Negative karma and details of haystack 
dependency issue here.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6685/ReviewBoard-2.0.16-1.el7,python-djblets-0.8.19-1.el7,python-django-evolution-0.7.5-1.el7

Forgive the formatting, I see bodhi doesn't preserve line endings within 
the comment box.

HTH,
Paul


On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 5:55:48 PM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:47 AM Christian Hammond  > wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> We just put out a release of Review Board 2.0.16. This release contains 
>> security fixes, so we recommend that you update!
>>
>> There are also some significant performance improvements across the 
>> entire site, especially for diff loading, along with a great many bug fixes.
>>
>> This is all detailed in the news post: 
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/06/11/review-board-2-0-16-out-safer-faster-and-more-stable/
>>
>>
> Packages for Fedora 21 and RHEL/CentOS 7 are now available at 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ReviewBoard
>
> Packages for Fedora 22 and 23 (Rawhide) are available in my COPR 
> repository:  
> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/f22-reviewboard/
>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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 2.0.13 is out!

[Paul Fee]

Hi David,

Both ReviewBoard-2.0.13-1.el7 

 
and RBTools-0.7.1-1.el7 

 
are still in testing.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ReviewBoard
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/RBTools

You can upgrade to them by enabling the epel-testing repo like this:
$ sudo yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing RBTools

If you find the new versions work as expected, then please leave positive 
karma by commenting on the versions you've tested.  I did this for the F21 
package, which got it promoted from testing to stable:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1786/RBTools-0.7.1-1.fc21

Positive testing results from you will help other EPEL7 users benefit from 
these updates.

Thanks,
Paul

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:02:58 PM UTC, David Carson wrote:
>
> Will this show up in CentOS 7 yum soon?  Also, I was expecting the RBTools 
> update to show up in CentOS 7 yum, but it has not.
>
> Thanks for the great work.  There are several bug fixes that I'm anxious 
> to pick up.
>
> On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 12:40:18 PM UTC-5, Stephen Gallagher 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>   On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 14:22 -0800, Christian Hammond wrote: 
>> > Hey everyone, 
>> > 
>> > We just put out a release of Review Board 2.0.13. This features several 
>> > bug fixes, some new features for Subversion and administrators, and API 
>> > performance improvements when using RBTools 0.7.1+. 
>> > 
>> > See the announcement for more info: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/02/12/review-board-2-0-13-released/ 
>> > 
>> > And the release notes: 
>> > 
>> > https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/releasenotes/reviewboard/2.0.13/ 
>>
>>
>> Fedora 21 and EPEL 7 packages are available at: 
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ReviewBoard 
>>
>>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://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: [Errno 13] Permission denied error when sending emails

[Paul Fee]

Hi all (and Stephen),

Looks like there are problems beyond SELinux here.  However in case you 
haven't already, you'll need adjust SELinux so that httpd (which is running 
the RB Django code via mod_wsgi) is allowed make outbound TCP connections 
to port 25.

$ sudo setsebool -P httpd_can_sendmail 1

HTH,
Paul

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:17:22 AM UTC, Yang wrote:
>
> Hello Michaela, 
>
> Could you please explain more how you fixed this issue? I meet the same 
> problem of sending emails in web2py running on Apache (CentOS). 
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:03:51 PM UTC+2, Michaela Newell wrote:
>>
>> Actually, figured out what the last bits were it was because I had TLS 
>> ticked but my server didn't have it. Fixed now :) Thanks very much. Your 
>> command audit2allow -a did not work however.
>>
>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:34:39 UTC+1, Michaela Newell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reply. It is RHEL/CentOS 6. It did not go away when I tried 
>>> the command but the error message has changed. Output from log now is:
>>>
>>> - Error sending e-mail notification with subject 'Review Request 2: gfhgf' 
>>> on behalf of '"" ' to '"" 
>>> ': STARTTLS extension not supported by server.
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>   File 
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reviewboard/notifications/email.py", line 
>>> 244, in send_review_mail
>>> message.send()
>>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/message.py", line 
>>> 248, in send
>>> return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self])
>>>   File 
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", line 
>>> 85, in send_messages
>>> new_conn_created = self.open()
>>>   File 
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", line 
>>> 51, in open
>>> self.connection.starttls()
>>>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 611, in starttls
>>> raise SMTPException("STARTTLS extension not supported by server.")
>>> SMTPException: STARTTLS extension not supported by server.
>>>
>>>
>>> The audit2allow -a command came back with command not found, running as 
>>> root.
>>>
>>> Michaela
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 14:48:30 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

 On 08/20/2013 09:46 AM, Michaela Newell wrote: 
 > I am attempting to set-up emails. I have all three options selected 
 and 
 > a valid smtp server. When I add a new user the logs show nothing but 
 the 
 > email does not get sent. When I add a new review request I get this 
 in 
 > the log: 
 > 
 >  - Error sending e-mail notification with subject 'Review Request 1: 
 ...' on behalf of '" " ' to '" " 
 ': [Errno 13] Permission denied 
 > Traceback (most recent call last): 
 >   File 
 "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reviewboard/notifications/email.py", 
 line 
 244, in send_review_mail 
 > message.send() 
 >   File 
 "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/message.py", line 248, 
 in send 
 > return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self]) 
 >   File 
 "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", line 
 85, in send_messages 
 > new_conn_created = self.open() 
 >   File 
 "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", line 
 48, in open 
 > local_hostname=DNS_NAME.get_fqdn()) 
 >   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 239, in __init__ 
 > (code, msg) = self.connect(host, port) 
 >   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 295, in connect 
 > self.sock = self._get_socket(host, port, self.timeout) 
 >   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 273, in _get_socket 
 > return socket.create_connection((port, host), timeout) 
 >   File "/usr/lib64/python2.6/socket.py", line 567, in 
 create_connection 
 > raise error, msg 
 > error: [Errno 13] Permission denied 
 > 
 > 
 > Does anyone know of any causes? 
 > 

 Is this RHEL/CentOS 6? It's possibke that SELinux might be interfering. 
 Does it go away if you do 'setenforce 0' as root? If so, please run the 
 command: 
 audit2allow -a 

 and send me the output. 



-- 
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: Fresh install on CentOS+EPEL - manual steps necessary beyond package installation

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the feedback, it's encouraging to see that some of the items 
could be automated and I appreciate that others will remain manual steps 
for the reasons you've stated.

In the mean time, should we enhance the ReviewBoard documentation so that 
it lists the steps necessary to go from a fresh OS install up to a working 
ReviewBoard site?  The current page lacks some of the steps I've detailed.

https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/installation/linux/

The current page mixes generic steps with distro specific information, 
which may confuse new users as they try to figure out which steps to apply 
and which to skip.  Despite the risk of duplicating information, I think it 
might be clearer and more concise if we had a separate page for 
RHEL/CentOS/Fedora installation.  Similar pages could be constructed for 
other distros.

If this seems reasonable, then how do we go about updating those pages?  
What format are the pages written in?

The longer term aim is that over time as some of the steps get incorporated 
in the distro packages or within rb-site install, then the manual install 
steps will shrink.

Thanks,
Paul


On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:44:46 AM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 04:33 -0700, Paul Fee wrote: 
> > Hi Stephen et al., 
> > 
> > I'm trying to get a CentOS7+EPEL install procedure that involves 
> > minimal setup.  My aim is to get most functionality into the distro 
> > packages so that manual steps are reduced.  Thanks for the bugs fixes 
> > and support so far. 
> > 
> > Here's a list of the manuals steps still necessary.  I'd like feedback 
> > if any of these can be automated and incorporated in a package.  For 
> > those that remain manual steps, should we update the install 
> > documentation to make this easier for others? 
> > 
> > Manual steps following CentOS7 minimal install: 
> > 
> > 1. Enable EPEL 
> > $ sudo yum install epel-release 
> > 
>
> EPEL is not part of the standard installation for a reason; it's 
> community-provided rather than part of the RHEL standard package set. 
> You can discuss with CentOS whether this should be available by default. 
>
> > 2. Install reviewboard, database and memcached 
> > $ sudo yum install ReviewBoard mariadb-server memcached 
> > 
> > 3. Start database server and secure it 
> > $ sudo systemctl enable mariadb 
> > $ sudo systemctl start mariadb 
> > $ sudo mysql_secure_installation 
> > 
>
> These steps we are working on in the Fedora Server product and will 
> hopefully be part of RHEL 8 (or maybe sometime later in the RHEL 7 
> lifecycle). Although our first target is postgresql, not MariaDB. Short 
> version: we intend to have a one-click mechanism to deploy a new DB via 
> the new rolekit project (Shameless plug: this is my latest effort). 
>
>
> > 4. Create database for use by reviewboard 
> > $ mysql -u root -p 
> > > create user review_user@localhost identified by 'review_password'; 
> > > create database reviewboard; 
> > > GRANT ALL ON reviewboard.* TO review_user; 
> > 
>
> I'll probably try to roll this creation into the rolekit-based 
> deployment as well. 
>
>
> > 5. Create a reviewboard site 
> > $ sudo rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard/ 
> > 
>
> This part is *very* ReviewBoard specific. We can't hard-code a path into 
> the packages and we can't automatically deploy because we don't know the 
> database information without user input (and RPM installs are 
> non-interactive, unlike Debian packages with debconf. That's a whole 
> other topic though). 
>
>
> > 6. Adjust httpd configuration 
> > $ sudo ln 
> > -s /var/www/reviewboard.bfs.tsp/conf/apache-wsgi.conf /etc/httpd/conf.d/ 
> > 
>
> This is something we could work into the package; we could potentially 
> carry a distribution-specific patch that automatically creates this 
> symlink during 'rb-site install'. Ideally, I'd like to do this as a 
> build flag upstream, so that other distributions could do so as well, 
> but a first path could be a Fedora/EPEL-specific patch. 
>
>
> > 7. Start web server 
> > $ sudo systemctl enable memcached 
> > $ sudo systemctl start memcached 
> > $ sudo systemctl enable httpd 
> > $ sudo systemctl start httpd 
> > 
>
> Fedora has a strict policy against *automatically* enabling services to 
> start at boot without user intervention. We *could* add a flag for 
> 'rb-site install' that would say "start automatically after completion", 
> but not until we'

Fresh install on CentOS+EPEL - manual steps necessary beyond package installation

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen et al.,

I'm trying to get a CentOS7+EPEL install procedure that involves minimal 
setup.  My aim is to get most functionality into the distro packages so 
that manual steps are reduced.  Thanks for the bugs fixes and support so 
far.

Here's a list of the manuals steps still necessary.  I'd like feedback if 
any of these can be automated and incorporated in a package.  For those 
that remain manual steps, should we update the install documentation to 
make this easier for others?

Manual steps following CentOS7 minimal install:

1. Enable EPEL
$ sudo yum install epel-release

2. Install reviewboard, database and memcached
$ sudo yum install ReviewBoard mariadb-server memcached

3. Start database server and secure it
$ sudo systemctl enable mariadb
$ sudo systemctl start mariadb
$ sudo mysql_secure_installation

4. Create database for use by reviewboard
$ mysql -u root -p
> create user review_user@localhost identified by 'review_password';
> create database reviewboard;
> GRANT ALL ON reviewboard.* TO review_user;

5. Create a reviewboard site
$ sudo rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard/

6. Adjust httpd configuration
$ sudo ln -s /var/www/reviewboard.bfs.tsp/conf/apache-wsgi.conf 
/etc/httpd/conf.d/

7. Start web server
$ sudo systemctl enable memcached
$ sudo systemctl start memcached
$ sudo systemctl enable httpd
$ sudo systemctl start httpd

8. Adjust site file permissions
$ sudo chown -R apache /var/www/reviewboard/data 
/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media/ext 
/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/ext 
/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media/uploaded

9. Adjust site SELinux permissions
$ sudo setsebool -P httpd_can_network_memcache 1
$ sudo chcon --type=httpd_sys_rw_content_t /var/www/reviewboard/data
$ sudo chcon --type=httpd_sys_rw_content_t 
/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media/ext
$ sudo chcon --type=httpd_sys_rw_content_t 
/var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/ext

10. Open port 80 on firewall
$ sudo firewall-cmd --add-port=80/tcp
$ sudo firewall-cmd --permanent --add-port=80/tcp

My understanding of packaging guidelines is that Fedora/RHEL packages 
shouldn't start services automatically, so perhaps these steps will always 
be necessary.  Also the site directory does not below to the ReviewBoard 
package, so only "rb-site" would be able to fix the permission issues 
(steps 8 and 9).

Have I missed anything in this list?  Can any of these steps be 
incorporated in the ReviewBoard package or within the rb-site command?  
Perhaps rb-site could include hooks for distros to plug into their own 
customisations, e.g. SELinux configuration on Fedora/RHEL.

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
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: EPEL - rb-site upgrade failure upon reboot prevents httpd startup

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

Your fix has resolved the issue on my system.  Thanks for the rapid 
response.

Cheers,
Paul

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:39:53 PM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 16:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 11:04 -0700, Paul Fee wrote: 
> > > Hi all (and Stephen Gallagher), 
> > > 
> > > I'm using CentOS7 + EPEL with ReviewBoard-2.0.11  (fresh install + 
> > > today's updates).  My site is listed in /etc/reviewboard/sites.  When 
> > > httpd starts up, it checks if any sites need upgraded.  I'm using a 
> > > mariadb database. 
> > > 
> > > When I reboot the box, httpd fails to startup. 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > $ sudo systemctl status httpd 
> > > httpd.service - The Apache HTTP Server 
> > >Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service; enabled) 
> > >   Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d 
> > >└─reviewboard-sites.conf 
> > >Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2014-10-29 17:42:28 
> > > GMT; 16s ago 
> > >   Process: 1184 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/rb-site upgrade --all-sites 
> > > (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE) 
> > > 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File 
> > > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py", 
> > > line 435, in get_new_connection 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: conn = 
> > > Database.connect(**conn_params) 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File 
> > > "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/__init__.py", line 81, in 
> > > Connect 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: return Connection(*args, 
> > > **kwargs) 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File 
> > > "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line 187, 
> > > in __init__ 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: super(Connection, 
> > > self).__init__(*args, **kwargs2) 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: 
> > > django.db.utils.OperationalError: (2002, "Can't connect to local MySQL 
> > > server through socket '...k' (2)") 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: httpd.service: control process 
> > > exited, code=exited status=1 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Failed to start The Apache HTTP 
> > > Server. 
> > > Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Unit httpd.service entered failed 
> > > state. 
> > > Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full. 
> > > == 
> > > 
> > > I can manually start httpd as mariadb is now running by the time I've 
> > > logged in. 
> > > 
> > > If I remove the /etc/reviewboard/sites file, the issue goes away.  If 
> > > I restore the file, the issue comes back. 
> > > 
> > > It looks like rb-site upgrade is being run before the database is 
> > > available.  Should systemd be using socket activation to start mariadb 
> > > once a connection attempt is made?  I believe 
> > > the /etc/reviewboard/sites facility is unique to Fedora/EPEL, so this 
> > > is could be a distro issue rather than ReviewBoard. 
> > 
> > 
> > MariaDB does not currently support socket-activation. What you need to 
> > do as a workaround right now is to add the following lines 
> > to /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d/reviewboard-sites.conf: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Unit] 
> > After=postgresql.service mariadb.service mysql.service 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'll roll this into the Fedora and EPEL packages. I hadn't thought of it 
> > previously. (Note: it's safe to list all of them on the After= line as 
> > this only controls ordering; it doesn't cause any of them to be started 
> > that would not already have been). 
> > 
> > Now I just have to hope that Apache never grows a dependency on a 
> > database... :) 
> > 
>
> Fedora 21: 
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-13850/ReviewBoard-2.0.11-2.fc21
>  
>
> EPEL 7: 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-2.0.11-2.el7 
>
>

-- 
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.

EPEL - rb-site upgrade failure upon reboot prevents httpd startup

[Paul Fee]

Hi all (and Stephen Gallagher),

I'm using CentOS7 + EPEL with ReviewBoard-2.0.11  (fresh install + today's 
updates).  My site is listed in /etc/reviewboard/sites.  When httpd starts 
up, it checks if any sites need upgraded.  I'm using a mariadb database.

When I reboot the box, httpd fails to startup.


$ sudo systemctl status httpd
httpd.service - The Apache HTTP Server
   Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service; enabled)
  Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d
   └─reviewboard-sites.conf
   Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2014-10-29 17:42:28 GMT; 
16s ago
  Process: 1184 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/rb-site upgrade --all-sites 
(code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)

Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py", line 
435, in get_new_connection
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: conn = 
Database.connect(**conn_params)
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File 
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/__init__.py", line 81, in 
Connect
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: return Connection(*args, **kwargs)
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File 
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line 187, in 
__init__
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: super(Connection, 
self).__init__(*args, **kwargs2)
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: django.db.utils.OperationalError: 
(2002, "Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '...k' (2)")
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: httpd.service: control process exited, 
code=exited status=1
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Failed to start The Apache HTTP Server.
Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Unit httpd.service entered failed state.
Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full.
==

I can manually start httpd as mariadb is now running by the time I've 
logged in.

If I remove the /etc/reviewboard/sites file, the issue goes away.  If I 
restore the file, the issue comes back.

It looks like rb-site upgrade is being run before the database is 
available.  Should systemd be using socket activation to start mariadb once 
a connection attempt is made?  I believe the /etc/reviewboard/sites 
facility is unique to Fedora/EPEL, so this is could be a distro issue 
rather than ReviewBoard.

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
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: httpd remains in 'starting' state when starting via systemctl

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

I don't recall exact details, but I've seen the "rb-site upgrade" command 
fail on occasion.  I think in my case the sequence was:

* yum update   [Included a reviewboard update]
* reboot
* While httpd service was starting rb-site upgrade was invoked.
* rb-site upgrade failed because mariadb had not started yet.

I manually fixed the issue by starting mariadb and running rb-site upgrade 
by hand.  However it does appear there's a race condition between httpd 
startup and rb-site's dependency on the database being available.

I'm not sure if this matches David's problem, but hopefully the above 
sequence will help you reproduce his issue and enhance the auto upgrade 
feature you implemented for Fedora packages.

Thanks,
Paul

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:14:34 AM UTC+1, David Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:10:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> On 09/23/2014 03:38 PM, David Carson wrote: 
>> > After following all directions for installing ReviewBoard 2.0 on CentOS 
>> > 7, I am still seeing one error that bothers me.  When I try to restart 
>> > httpd, it remains in *'starting'* state and will never go to *'active 
>> > (running)'* state.  However, if I remove the following file, httpd 
>> > starts and stops properly. 
>> > 
>> >/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d/reviewboards-sites.conf 
>> > 
>> > I only discovered this file because there was an error in 
>> > /var/log/messages regarding the line "type=oneshot" (which should be 
>> > "*T*ype=oneshot").  After correcting the spelling, I no longer see the 
>> > error, but I cannot start httpd either. 
>> > 
>> > I have moved this file out of the way, and my ReviewBoard installation 
>> > is now working, at least to the point of bringing up the interface and 
>> > allowing me to login as admin.  But I'm wondering what the 
>> repercussions 
>> > of removing the systemd file might be. 
>> > 
>>
>> I'll field this one, since this bit is unique to my packages. The 
>> purpose of that oneshot target is to guarantee that the Review Board 
>> automatically runs 'rb-site upgrade' for all sites when it is started up 
>> (thus guaranteeing that if you perform an RPM upgrade, it will upgrade 
>> Review Board the next time it is started. 
>>
>> I'm curious why it's hanging during the upgrade step, though. Can you 
>> check the journal for what's happening when you see that? 
>>
>> The command 'journalctl -e -u httpd.service' should give you the output. 
>> It's possible that there's a bug in the upgrade routine. Have you 
>> checked for SELinux denials? 
>>
>
> Stephen,
> This is an internal-only server, so I turned off SELinux before doing 
> anything else (and rebooted, of course).
>
> The journalctl command seems to indicate that the update finished:
>
>
> -- Logs begin at Tue 2014-09-23 18:56:22 EDT, end at Tue 2014-09-23 
> 19:50:32 EDT. --
> :
> :
> Sep 23 19:50:13 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Stopping The Apache HTTP 
> Server...
> Sep 23 19:50:14 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Starting The Apache HTTP 
> Server...
> Sep 23 19:50:14 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Started The Apache HTTP 
> Server.
> Sep 23 19:50:27 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Stopping The Apache HTTP 
> Server...
> Sep 23 19:50:28 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Starting The Apache HTTP 
> Server...
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Rebuilding directory 
> structure
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Updating database. This 
> may take a while.
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: The log output below, 
> including warnings and errors,
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: can be ignored unless 
> upgrade fails.
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: --  log output> --
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Creating tables ...
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Installing custom SQL ...
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Installing indexes ...
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Installed 0 object(s) from 
> 0 fixture(s)
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: No evolution required.
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: ---  log output> ---
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Resetting in-database 
> caches.
> Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: *Upgrade complete!* 
>
>
>
> But the systemctl command itself is sitting there, not returning to the 
> command prompt, and the status shows that it is still activating, but never 
> activated:
>
> (0)[root@pinehurst ~] systemctl status httpd.service
> httpd.service - The Apache HTTP Server
> Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service; enabled)
> Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d
> └─reviewboard-sites.conf
> *Active: activating (start) *since Tue 2014-09-23 19:50:28 EDT; 11min ago
> Process: 3223 ExecStop=/bin/kill -WINCH ${MAINPID} (code=exited, 
> status=0/SU

Re: RBTools 0.6.2 is released

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

Nice to see RBTools packaged for EPEL7.  What's the status of ReviewBoard2 
for EPEL7?  Need any help?

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
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: Fedora rawhide: RB Dashboard missing "Edit Columns" button and column styling

[Paul Fee]

Thanks Stephen and Christian, I've downloaded the rawhide updates from Koji 
and confirmed they've fixed this issue.

-- 
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: Fedora rawhide: RB Dashboard missing "Edit Columns" button and column styling

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

Comparing the HTML using Firefox/Firebug, I see both good and bad pages
have the correct HTML to display the "Edit columns" heading.  However the
bad page has missing CSS styling.

On Fedora rawhide, with an up to date "locate" database, I can see an empty
CSS file that looks suspicious.

$ ls -l `locate datagrid | grep css`
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6251 May 27 15:03
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.css
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6316 May 27 15:03
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.da6c340af879.css
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6316 May 27 02:01
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.6521a0d8b348.css
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root0 May 27 15:03
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.css
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root0 May 27 15:03
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.d41d8cd98f00.css
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6251 May 27 02:01
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/static/djblets/css/datagrid.css

I expect those two empty files are (part of) the problem.

According to "rpm -qf" they're both owned by
python-djblets-0.8.1-1.fc21.noarch.

Thanks,
Paul


On 2 June 2014 14:14, Stephen Gallagher  wrote:

> On 05/30/2014 01:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 05/30/2014 12:57 PM, Paul Fee wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On my Fedora rawhide system with RB2.0 the dashboard doesn't look right.
> >>
> >> * The column headers are missing their styling.
> >> * The "Edit Columns" button is missing.
> >>
> >> I see this with a freshly created site as illustrated below:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There's no issue with RB1.7.25 on Centos6 nor RB2.0.1 hosted at
> >> http://demo.reviewboard.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm suspecting the issue is unique to the Rawhide packages.  Has anyone
> >> else seen this or able to reproduce?
> >>
> >
> > I saw that on an instance I created the other day as well. I'll look
> > into it next week.
> >
>
> Ok, I'm pretty stumped here. There's nothing obviously wrong with the
> build [1] [2], but I'm getting output that is apparently *slightly*
> malformed, such that neither Chrome or Firefox will render it properly.
> I do not have a strong background in HTML/JS, so I can't spot the issue.
> I'm attaching the saved page, hopefully someone can take a look and tell
> me where I screwed up.
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.8.1/1.fc21/data/logs/noarch/build.log
> [2]
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ReviewBoard/2.0.1/1.fc21/data/logs/noarch/build.log
>
> --
> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/31p7hxUkUX4/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> 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: Problems upgrading from RB1.5 to RB2.0RC3

[Paul Fee]

Thank you Christian and Stephen,

I'm now able to upgrade my RB1.5 database to RB2.0 using the packages from 
Fedora Rawhide.

-- 
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: Problems upgrading from RB1.5 to RB2.0RC3

[Paul Fee]

Following the release of RB2.0, I retested with the latest packages in 
Fedora rawhide and EPEL.

The issue is still present with ReviewBoard-2.0-13.fc21 on Fedora rawhide.

The same procedure (a database import and rb-site upgrade) works with 
ReviewBoard-1.7.25-1.el6 on CentOS6+EPEL.

Note on Fedora, the database dump was modified from MyISAM to InnoDB before 
importing.  On CentOS, the engine was left as MyISAM, presumably because 
the default engine used by MySQL on CentOS is MyISAM where as it's InnoDB 
with mariadb on Fedora Rawhide.

Any advice on next steps to debug?

Since there are a few differences between the systems, perhaps eliminate a 
few, e.g. use Fedora Rawhide for both 2.0 and 1.7.25 tests, that way 
mariadb will be common to both setups.

-- 
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: Announcing the release of Review Board 2.0!

[Paul Fee]

Thanks, it's working now following the python-djblets-0.8-7 update.

-- 
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: Announcing the release of Review Board 2.0!

[Paul Fee]

Hi Stephen,

I updated a rawhide machine to ReviewBoard-2.0-12.fc21.noarch.

Upon invoking rb-site, instead of usage help, I get the following error:
===
$ rb-site 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 5, in 
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 2713, in 

parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 567, in 
resolve
raise DistributionNotFound(req)
pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: Djblets>=0.8,<0.9
===

According to rpm the ReviewBoard package has its dependencies satisfied:

$ rpm -q --requires ReviewBoard | grep djblets
python-djblets >= 0.8-6
$ rpm -q python-djblets
python-djblets-0.8-6.fc21.rc2.noarch

Any ideas why rb-site isn't satisfied at runtime with the version of 
Djblets?

Looking in 
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.8rc2-py2.7.egg-info/PKG-INFO, I 
see "Version: 0.8rc2".  Would the rc2 interfere with the version comparison?

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
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.

Problems upgrading from RB1.5 to RB2.0RC3

[Paul Fee]

Hi all,

I'm attempting a Reviewboard 1.5->2.0 migration.  An old server has RB1.5 
I'm testing moving the data to a new RB2.0RC3 server.

Old server details:
Ubuntu 10.04
Manual installation of Reviewboard 1.5
Dump database: $ mysqldump -u admin -p reviewboard > 
/tmp/reviewboard.mysql.dump

Edit dump file to replace MyISAM with InnoDB engine.

New server:
Fedora rawhide, RB 2.0RC3 from standard repo.
Create new site: rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard
Drop mysql reviewboard database.
Create new (empty) database
Import data from old server: mysql -p reviewboard < reviewboard.mysql.dump
Upgrade database: rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard

This fails with the following output:


$ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
Rebuilding directory structure
Updating database. This may take a while.

The log output below, including warnings and errors,
can be ignored unless upgrade fails.

--  --
Creating tables ...
Creating table extensions_registeredextension
Creating table attachments_fileattachment
Creating table diffviewer_filediffdata
Creating table hostingsvcs_hostingserviceaccount
Creating table reviews_fileattachmentcomment
Creating table site_localsite_users
Creating table site_localsite_admins
Creating table site_localsite
Creating table accounts_localsiteprofile
Upgrading Review Board from 1.5 to 2.0 RC3
There are unapplied evolutions for auth.
There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes.
There are unapplied evolutions for sessions.
There are unapplied evolutions for attachments.
There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs.
There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer.
There are unapplied evolutions for hostingsvcs.
There are unapplied evolutions for reviews.
There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools.
There are unapplied evolutions for site.
Adding baseline version for new models
Evolutions in attachments baseline: file_attachment_orig_filename, 
file_attachment_file_max_length_512, file_attachment_repo_info, 
file_attachment_repo_path_no_index, 
file_attachment_repo_revision_max_length_64
Evolutions in site baseline: localsite_public
Evolutions in hostingsvcs baseline: account_hosting_url, 
account_hosting_url_max_length_255, account_unique_together_baseline
Project signature has changed - an evolution is required
There are unapplied evolutions for accounts.
Installing custom SQL ...
Installing indexes ...
Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
Registering new SCM Tool Plastic SCM 
(reviewboard.scmtools.plastic.PlasticTool) in database
ERROR:root:Unexpected error: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 65, in handle
self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 125, in evolve
sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 165, in evolve_app
app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
line 303, in to_sql
sql.extend(mutator.to_sql())
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
line 186, in to_sql
return self.evolver.generate_table_ops_sql(self, self._ops)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py", 
line 42, in generate_table_ops_sql
prev_sql_result, prev_op)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py", 
line 92, in generate_table_op_sql
sql_result.add(op['sql'])
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line 
105, in add
super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line 
30, in add
self.sql += sql_or_result
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 1733, in main
command.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 1556, in run
site.migrate_database()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 425, in migrate_database
self.run_manage_command("evolve", ["--noinput", "--execute"])
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 626, in run_manage_command
execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 
399, in execute_from_command_line
utility.execute()
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 
392, in execute
self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from

Re: Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.

[Paul Fee]

 in add
super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result)
  File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line
30, in add
self.sql += sql_or_result
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
=======

Can you help with this problem?

Thanks,
Paul


On 1 May 2014 19:01, Christian Hammond  wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Your database is using MyISAM while MySQL is configuring new databases to
> use InnoDB. You'll need to edit your database dump to set all table types
> to InnoDB and re-import/upgrade.
>
> This is a more general MySQL issue, and not one we really have control
> over during upgrade.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thursday, May 1, 2014, Paul Fee  wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> I found your fix on github and manually applied the change to rbsite.py
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/commit/11a850ca279416feed96beae9efd6c4c1f188f15
>>
>> Repeating the procedure allows "rb-site upgrade" to get past the previous
>> error:
>> django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, "Unknown column
>> 'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause'")
>>
>> However, I see new errors now:
>> =
>> $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
>> Rebuilding directory structure
>> Updating database. This may take a while.
>>
>> The log output below, including warnings and errors,
>> can be ignored unless upgrade fails.
>>
>> --  --
>> Creating tables ...
>> Creating table extensions_registeredextension
>> Creating table attachments_fileattachment
>>
>> [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the
>> database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then
>> continue.
>> [!] Details: (1005, 'Can\'t create table `reviewboard`.`#sql-605_11`
>> (errno: 150 "Foreign key constraint is incorrectly formed")')
>>
>> Press Enter to continue
>> ==
>>
>> Pressing enter a few times gives the same error for the following tables:
>> * site_localsite_users
>> * site_localsite_admins
>> * accounts_localsiteprofile
>>
>> After that rb-site continues and finally exits with this error output:
>> =
>> Installing custom SQL ...
>> Installing indexes ...
>> Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
>> Registering new SCM Tool Plastic SCM
>> (reviewboard.scmtools.plastic.PlasticTool) in database
>> ERROR:root:Unexpected error: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 65, in handle
>> self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 125, in evolve
>> sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
>> line 165, in evolve_app
>> app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql()
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 303, in to_sql
>> sql.extend(mutator.to_sql())
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py",
>> line 186, in to_sql
>> return self.evolver.generate_table_ops_sql(self, self._ops)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py",
>> line 42, in generate_table_ops_sql
>> prev_sql_result, prev_op)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py",
>> line 92, in generate_table_op_sql
>> sql_result.add(op['sql'])
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line
>> 105, in add
>> super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result)
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line
>> 30, in add
>> self.sql += sql_or_result
>> TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts',
>> 'rb-site')()
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>&

Re: Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.

[Paul Fee]

Hi Christian,

I found your fix on github and manually applied the change to rbsite.py

https://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/commit/11a850ca279416feed96beae9efd6c4c1f188f15

Repeating the procedure allows "rb-site upgrade" to get past the previous 
error:
django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, "Unknown column 
'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause'")

However, I see new errors now:
=
$ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
Rebuilding directory structure
Updating database. This may take a while.

The log output below, including warnings and errors,
can be ignored unless upgrade fails.

--  --
Creating tables ...
Creating table extensions_registeredextension
Creating table attachments_fileattachment

[!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the
database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then
continue.
[!] Details: (1005, 'Can\'t create table `reviewboard`.`#sql-605_11`
(errno: 150 "Foreign key constraint is incorrectly formed")')

Press Enter to continue
==

Pressing enter a few times gives the same error for the following tables:
* site_localsite_users
* site_localsite_admins
* accounts_localsiteprofile

After that rb-site continues and finally exits with this error output:
=
Installing custom SQL ...
Installing indexes ...
Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s)
Registering new SCM Tool Plastic SCM 
(reviewboard.scmtools.plastic.PlasticTool) in database
ERROR:root:Unexpected error: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 65, in handle
self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 125, in evolve
sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 165, in evolve_app
app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
line 303, in to_sql
sql.extend(mutator.to_sql())
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
line 186, in to_sql
return self.evolver.generate_table_ops_sql(self, self._ops)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py", 
line 42, in generate_table_ops_sql
prev_sql_result, prev_op)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py", 
line 92, in generate_table_op_sql
sql_result.add(op['sql'])
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line 
105, in add
super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py", line 
30, in add
self.sql += sql_or_result
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 1733, in main
command.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 1556, in run
site.migrate_database()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 425, in migrate_database
self.run_manage_command("evolve", ["--noinput", "--execute"])
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 626, in run_manage_command
execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 
399, in execute_from_command_line
utility.execute()
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 
392, in execute
self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", 
line 242, in run_from_argv
self.execute(*args, **options.__dict__)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", 
line 285, in execute
output = self.handle(*args, **options)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 65, in handle
self.evolve(*app_labels, **options)
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 125, in evolve
sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app))
  File 
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py",
 
line 165, in evolve_app
app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
line 303, in to_sql
sql.extend(mutator.to_sql())
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py", 
line 186, in to_sql
ret

Re: Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.

[Paul Fee]

Hi Chris,

I repeated the test to ensure the database wasn't empty.  I confirmed that
I'd imported the RB1.5 database, ready for "rb-site upgrade".

Steps:
# rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard
mysql> drop database reviewboard;
mysql> create database reviewboard;
# mysql -uroot -p reviewboard < ~/reviewboard.mysql.dump   <= Note
reviewboard database is no longer empty, it contains content from RB1.5
from a separate machine.
# rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard


Result: Same failure as previously posted.
django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, "Unknown column
'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause'")

This migration procedure works on Centos6.5 with RB1.7.22, but failed on
Fedora rawhide with RB2.0RC2 (from Stephen Gallagher's COPR repo).

Is there more info I can collect to help debug?  How far back does RB2.0
support an upgrade from?  Should I upgrade via an intermediate version?

Thanks,
Paul


On 18 April 2014 20:00, Christian Hammond  wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> rb-site upgrade isn't meant to be used on a completely empty database. It
> expects an existing install, so when you dropped and recreated the
> database, it was unable to find the state it needs to perform an actual
> upgrade.
>
> If you need to just start fresh from a database, you can re-run install,
> or:
>
> $ rb-site manage /path/to/site syncdb
>
> That should generate a fresh new database (if there isn't already any
> schema).
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Paul Fee  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was testing migration from a 1.5 system to 2.0RC2.
>>
>> I took a mysql dump from the old system and copied it to the new system.
>> Following an "rb-site install" on the new system, I dropped and recreated
>> the reviewboard database, then tried "rb-site upgrade ".
>>
>> This procedure worked on CentOS6/EPEL/ReviewBoard 1.7.22, however with
>> Fedora rawhide/COPR/Reviewboard 2.0RC2, I get this error:
>>
>> $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts',
>> 'rb-site')()
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1727, in main
>> command.run()
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1530, in run
>> diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed()
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 443, in get_diff_dedup_needed
>> return FileDiff.objects.unmigrated().count() > 0
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py", line
>> 291, in count
>> return self.query.get_count(using=self.db)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py",
>> line 390, in get_count
>> number = obj.get_aggregation(using=using)[None]
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py",
>> line 356, in get_aggregation
>> result = query.get_compiler(using).execute_sql(SINGLE)
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py", line
>> 782, in execute_sql
>> cursor.execute(sql, params)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py",
>> line 53, in execute
>> return self.cursor.execute(sql, params)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/utils.py", line 99, in
>> __exit__
>> six.reraise(dj_exc_type, dj_exc_value, traceback)
>>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py",
>> line 53, in execute
>> return self.cursor.execute(sql, params)
>>   File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py", line
>> 124, in execute
>> return self.cursor.execute(query, args)
>>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/cursors.py", line 174,
>> in execute
>> self.errorhandler(self, exc, value)
>>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line
>> 36, in defaulterrorhandler
>> raise errorclass, errorvalue
>> django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, "Unknown column
>> 'diffviewer_

Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.

[Paul Fee]

Hi all,

I was testing migration from a 1.5 system to 2.0RC2.

I took a mysql dump from the old system and copied it to the new system.  
Following an "rb-site install" on the new system, I dropped and recreated 
the reviewboard database, then tried "rb-site upgrade ".

This procedure worked on CentOS6/EPEL/ReviewBoard 1.7.22, however with 
Fedora rawhide/COPR/Reviewboard 2.0RC2, I get this error:

$ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/bin/rb-site", line 9, in 
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 1727, in main
command.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 1530, in run
diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py", 
line 443, in get_diff_dedup_needed
return FileDiff.objects.unmigrated().count() > 0
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py", line 
291, in count
return self.query.get_count(using=self.db)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py", 
line 390, in get_count
number = obj.get_aggregation(using=using)[None]
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py", 
line 356, in get_aggregation
result = query.get_compiler(using).execute_sql(SINGLE)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py", 
line 782, in execute_sql
cursor.execute(sql, params)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py", line 
53, in execute
return self.cursor.execute(sql, params)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/utils.py", line 99, in 
__exit__
six.reraise(dj_exc_type, dj_exc_value, traceback)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py", line 
53, in execute
return self.cursor.execute(sql, params)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py", 
line 124, in execute
return self.cursor.execute(query, args)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/cursors.py", line 174, 
in execute
self.errorhandler(self, exc, value)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line 
36, in defaulterrorhandler
raise errorclass, errorvalue
django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, "Unknown column 
'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause'")

Since this worked with reviewboard 1.7, I presume this is a bug in 2.0.  
Would you like more data to help diagnose the issue?

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
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.

memcached problems following 1.5 to 1.7.22 migration

[Paul Fee]

Hi all,

I'm testing a migration from 1.5 to 1.7.22.

Summary of migration steps.

Old system:
=
Ubuntu 10.04
Manual installation of Reviewboard 1.5
Dump database: $ mysqldump -u admin -p reviewboard > 
/tmp/reviewboard.mysql.dump

New system (separate host, don't want to risk in place upgrade)
==
Minimal install of CentOS 6.5
Add EPEL repo
yum install ReviewBoard mysql-server memcached system-config-firewall-tui
Setup mysql user and create fresh "reviewboard" database.
rb-site install 
Drop mysql "reviewboard" database.
Copy mysql dump from old system
Import database: mysql -p reviewboard < reviewboard.mysql.dump
rb-site upgrade 

The upgrade works, the old reviews and users are present.  However the new 
system isn't using memcached.

On the Admin UI, the server cache page reports:

Cache backend:

django.core.cache.backends.memcached.CacheClass

Statistics are not available for this backend


Manual telnet to memcached, port 11211, then issue "stats" command shows no 
activity:
==
STAT cmd_get 0
STAT cmd_set 0
STAT cmd_flush 0
STAT get_hits 0
STAT get_misses 0
STAT delete_misses 0
STAT delete_hits 0
STAT incr_misses 0
STAT incr_hits 0
STAT decr_misses 0
STAT decr_hits 0
STAT cas_misses 0
STAT cas_hits 0
STAT cas_badval 0
==

Looking into the memcached settings, I see that 
/conf/settings_local.py has:
# Cache backend settings.
CACHES = {
'default': {
'BACKEND': 'django.core.cache.backends.memcached.MemcachedCache',
'LOCATION': 'localhost:11211',
},
}

However within the reviewboard database in mysql, the 
siteconfig_siteconfiguration table has:
"cache_backend": {"default": {"LOCATION": ["localhost:11211"], "BACKEND": 
"django.core.cache.backends.memcached.CacheClass"}}

To me it looks like the settings_local.py configuration has come from 
reviewboard 1.7.22 as a result of "rb-site install" and the mysql 
configuration from reviewboard 1.5 as a result of importing the dump from 
the old system.

The old system is using Django 1.2.3, the new one Django 1.4.8.

The bug appears to be that "rb-site upgrade" hasn't adjusted the 
siteconfig_siteconfiguration table to take account of the new memcached 
class used in Django 1.4.8.

Is my analysis accurate?  Should I manually adjust the 
siteconfig_siteconfiguration table to fix this?  Can this be fixed in 
reviewboard so others don't experience the same issue?

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
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: Required vs Optional Reviewers

[Paul Fee]

Also, on review notification emails, people get email "to" them and the group 
gets "CCed".  Which fits what the OP asked for.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: ReviewBoard server tips over about twice a week

[Paul Fee]

MaxRequestsPerChild of 4000 should be fine.  I happen to have mine 
configured to 3000.  I didn't find the root cause of my server's lock ups, 
at the time I noted increased memory use by Apache.  A few months of 
evidence shows the change to be effective.  BTW I'm running RB 1.5 on an 
old Ubuntu release, so my problems may well have been fixed in more recent 
versions.  I expect you've got server issues different from mine, but 
MaxRequestsPerChild shouldn't do any harm.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:19:17 PM UTC+1, Steve wrote:
>
> Thanks Paul, that's helpful. We're using the prefork MPM.  Do you think 
> 4000 is too large a number for MaxRequetsPerChild?
>
> --Steve
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:15:35 AM UTC-7, Paul Fee wrote:
>>
>> Your httpd.conf suggests you've got mod_status enabled.  Therefore visit 
>> the /server-status URL on your web server.  This should cause Apache httpd 
>> to provide a page that summarises the status of all its workers.  That may 
>> help you understand why you've got more httpd processes than expected.
>>
>> Also, I've found the MaxRequestsPerChild directive to be useful on an 
>> installation of mine that would lock up occasionally.  Your config shows 
>> the directive set to 4000 for the prefork MPM, but 0 (infinity) for the 
>> worker MPM.  Check which MPM you're using (execute "httpd -V") and ensure 
>> that MaxRequestsPerChild is taking effect.  The config file contains a set 
>> of MPM tuning directives, duplicated for prefork and worker, make sure the 
>> required configuration is actually active.
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:36:59 PM UTC+1, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>> I see the 'server cache' information in the admin page.  It shows the 
>>> memory usage at around 150MB, so clearly 64MB was not enough. 
>>>  Unfortunately, the load average once again climbed over 100 and I had 
>>> close to 200 apache processes running.  It's baffling.  Can you guide me on 
>>> how to limit the number of apache processes and threads?  I've attached the 
>>> apache httpd.conf file.
>>>
>>> Thanks Christian.
>>>
>>> --steve
>>>
>>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: ReviewBoard server tips over about twice a week

[Paul Fee]

Your httpd.conf suggests you've got mod_status enabled.  Therefore visit 
the /server-status URL on your web server.  This should cause Apache httpd 
to provide a page that summarises the status of all its workers.  That may 
help you understand why you've got more httpd processes than expected.

Also, I've found the MaxRequestsPerChild directive to be useful on an 
installation of mine that would lock up occasionally.  Your config shows 
the directive set to 4000 for the prefork MPM, but 0 (infinity) for the 
worker MPM.  Check which MPM you're using (execute "httpd -V") and ensure 
that MaxRequestsPerChild is taking effect.  The config file contains a set 
of MPM tuning directives, duplicated for prefork and worker, make sure the 
required configuration is actually active.

-- 
Paul

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:36:59 PM UTC+1, Steve wrote:
>
> I see the 'server cache' information in the admin page.  It shows the 
> memory usage at around 150MB, so clearly 64MB was not enough. 
>  Unfortunately, the load average once again climbed over 100 and I had 
> close to 200 apache processes running.  It's baffling.  Can you guide me on 
> how to limit the number of apache processes and threads?  I've attached the 
> apache httpd.conf file.
>
> Thanks Christian.
>
> --steve
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.