AD Auth - Restrict users to specified group – not working
Hi, Is there a special syntax to enable the group restriction feature for the active directory auth settings. I already tried simply the group name or the ldap syntax (CN=GROUP NAME,OU=OU Name,DC=XX,DC=XX). Both ways don’t work. The upcoming configuration fields are used: Domain Name: Name of Domain Domain Controller: FQDN Domaincontroller Recursion Depth: -1 Is there anything else I have to do? Thanks, Philipp -- 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: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
'Select a valid choice. 1880 is not one of the available choices.' This sounds like validatation error of the MultipleChoiceField. If this is true I'm very surprised because I explicitly disabled validation by using a specialized version of MultipleChoiceField: class MultiChoiceWithoutValidation(forms.MultipleChoiceField): def validate(self, value): # Choices are created dynamically and cannot be validated pass We ran never into this problem on our side. Any ideas? Best regards, Philipp On May 12, 12:52 am, Rob Coward wrote: > Spoke too soon. Although the list of revisions is now getting > populated, when selection one of the check-boxes and clicking the > 'Create' button, it comes back with 'Select a valid choice. 1880 is not > one of the available choices.' however manually entering revision 1880 > in the text box does create the review correctly. > > Regards, > > Rob > > On > Wed, 11 May 2011 23:45:17 +0100, Rob Coward wrote: > > > Ignore me - > > further code inspection led me to realise that my reviewboard userid > wasnt the same user that had done the subversion checkin. On changing my > reviewboard userid to match, the button now populates a nice list of > revisions. > > > Great job. > > > Now to convince the team at work that > > this is a worth while package to start using. Lets hope this > functionality makes it into the main code soon. > > > > > > > > > > > Rob -- 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: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Rob,
The fix is committed. Could you please test with the latest version of
reviewboard/scmtools/svn_post_tracker.py?
- Philipp
On May 10, 8:58 pm, Philipp Henkel
wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks, I'm glad you like it.
> Currently I rely on svn:log property in order to extract the commit
> description. This property might not exist because you don't enforce
> commit messages (like we do). I have already a better solution in mind
> and it should be easy to fix.
>
> Best regards,
> Philipp
>
> On May 10, 12:35 am, Rob Coward wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Philipp,
>
> > I am very interested in your Subversion Post-commit
> > enhancement, and quite possibly might be the killer feature that
> > persuades us to start using it at work too.
>
> > I have downloaded your
> > code and dropped it on top of 1.5.5 for now (if I get time, I'll be
> > trying to port your patches up to the latest 1.6 beta2) and it is mostly
> > working in that I can manually specify a list of revisions and it will
> > generate the diffs and create the review etc, however when clicking on
> > the 'Get Revisions' button I get an Error500 back from the server with
> > the following in apache's error_log:
>
> > ERROR:root:Exception thrown for
> > user admin athttp://192.168.1.68/r/newpost/
>
> > 'revprops'
> > Traceback (most
> > recent call last):
> > File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py", line
> > 99, in get_response
> > response = callback(request, *callback_args,
> > **callback_kwargs)
> > File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/djblets/auth/util.py", line 46, in
> > _checklogin
> > return view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
> > File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/views.py", line
> > 98, in new_post_review_request
>
> > diff_file=request.FILES.get('diff_path'))
> > File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/forms.py", line
> > 411, in create
> > raise e
> > KeyError: 'revprops'
>
> > The subversion repo is a
> > brand new repo I created for the task of reviewing your code, populated
> > initially with cvs2svn to import an existing cvs repository.
>
> > Any
> > thoughts ?
>
> > Thanks for your hard work.
>
> > Rob Coward
>
> > On Fri, 6 May
> > 2011 02:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > Did anyone
>
> > had a chance to have look at my post-commit implementation?
>
> >http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard[1]
>
> > > The subversion
>
> > implementation is complete and for Perforce I realized> the basic
>
> > feature set. It is already possible to create requests by> typing in
>
> > change numbers in the Post-commit web form.
>
> > > Best regards,
>
> > Philipp
>
> > > --
> > > Philipp Henkel
> > > Citrix Online -www.citrixonline.com
> > [2]
>
> > > The views expressed here are mine alone and have not been
> > authorized
> > > by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, Citrix.
>
> > Links:
> > --
> > [1]http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard
> > [2]http://www.citrixonline.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
Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Hi Rob,
Thanks, I'm glad you like it.
Currently I rely on svn:log property in order to extract the commit
description. This property might not exist because you don't enforce
commit messages (like we do). I have already a better solution in mind
and it should be easy to fix.
Best regards,
Philipp
On May 10, 12:35 am, Rob Coward wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
> I am very interested in your Subversion Post-commit
> enhancement, and quite possibly might be the killer feature that
> persuades us to start using it at work too.
>
> I have downloaded your
> code and dropped it on top of 1.5.5 for now (if I get time, I'll be
> trying to port your patches up to the latest 1.6 beta2) and it is mostly
> working in that I can manually specify a list of revisions and it will
> generate the diffs and create the review etc, however when clicking on
> the 'Get Revisions' button I get an Error500 back from the server with
> the following in apache's error_log:
>
> ERROR:root:Exception thrown for
> user admin athttp://192.168.1.68/r/newpost/
>
> 'revprops'
> Traceback (most
> recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py", line
> 99, in get_response
> response = callback(request, *callback_args,
> **callback_kwargs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/djblets/auth/util.py", line 46, in
> _checklogin
> return view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/views.py", line
> 98, in new_post_review_request
>
> diff_file=request.FILES.get('diff_path'))
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/forms.py", line
> 411, in create
> raise e
> KeyError: 'revprops'
>
> The subversion repo is a
> brand new repo I created for the task of reviewing your code, populated
> initially with cvs2svn to import an existing cvs repository.
>
> Any
> thoughts ?
>
> Thanks for your hard work.
>
> Rob Coward
>
> On Fri, 6 May
> 2011 02:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Did anyone
>
> had a chance to have look at my post-commit implementation?
>
> http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard[1]
>
> > The subversion
>
> implementation is complete and for Perforce I realized> the basic
>
> feature set. It is already possible to create requests by> typing in
>
> change numbers in the Post-commit web form.
>
>
>
> > Best regards,
>
> Philipp
>
> > --
> > Philipp Henkel
> > Citrix Online -www.citrixonline.com
> [2]
>
> > The views expressed here are mine alone and have not been
> authorized
> > by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, Citrix.
>
> Links:
> --
> [1]http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard
> [2]http://www.citrixonline.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
Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Hi, Did anyone had a chance to have look at my post-commit implementation? http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard The subversion implementation is complete and for Perforce I realized the basic feature set. It is already possible to create requests by typing in change numbers in the Post-commit web form. Best regards, Philipp -- Philipp Henkel Citrix Online - www.citrixonline.com The views expressed here are mine alone and have not been authorized by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, Citrix. On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Jan Koprowski wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Christian Hammond > wrote: > > Hey, > > > I'll be honest, I'm not wild about Review Board's codebase knowing about > > post-review at all. It introduces some compatibility concerns and makes it > > harder to move forward on either end without breaking the other. > > I suspect You will say that and I completely understand this and agree > with Your approach. > > > What I'd prefer instead is just expanding upon the capabilities that SCMTool > > offers. However, I haven't looked at the code for this feature yet, so I > > can't really say how much overlap there'd end up being. > > It is good enought to just "fix" current post-review e.g. allow to > generate reviews from git bare-repositories and then somehow "share" > this common peace of code with reviewboard and rbtools - somehow. > > > post-review (and RBTools) is going to end up changing to provide an actual > > Python API for clients and for talking to RB, and at that point we may want > > to look at what can be factored out into some common library. But I don't > > want to jump the gun on that yet. > > If rbtools code will be ported into RB - it is a good approach to > write more patches to rbtools which will be able to work on "bare" > repositories and add more post-review methods for each version-control > system. Then - just add GUI to this functions - that is all. > > > > > > > Christian > > > -- > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Jan Koprowski > > wrote: > > >> Philipp, > > >> Thank You for fast response. Implementing new class to do the same > >> (what rbtools.postreview does) sounds like some part of work can be > >> "reused". Guessing (watching screenshot o Your website) You have > >> different approach to Subversion post-review requesting but for other > >> tools like ClearQuest, Git and I thought also mercurial classes from > >> rbtools.postreview are perfect to reuse in most cases. > >> Please, forgive me, but I'm engineer and I always though in terms of > >> implementation. So. rbtools could be not also client-side library but > >> also server side library (I'm thinking loudly now) ReviewBoard can > >> detect it > > >> try: > >> from rbtools import postreview > >> expect ImportError: > >> postreview = None > > >> if postreview: > >> # Turn on Philipp's magic stuff > > >> And then only thing which is need is extend existing classes from > >> postreview by some additional methods and use existing which can be > >> used e.g. will be nice to have method which return all available > >> branches available in repository to autocomplete names of this > >> branches in reviewboard. But everything else are present already. Your > >> Subversion method is probably some kind of implementation of > >> --revision-range="" or something similar. > > >> What do You thinking about such postreview implementation in ReviewBoard? > > >> Greetings from Poland! > >> -- > > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Philipp Henkel > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Jan, > > >> > I neither use post-review nor the rbtools. I decided to slightly > >> > extend the SCM tool concept and derived a new class from SVNTool. This > >> > new SCM tool provides functionality like diff file creation or > >> > generation of revisions which are not yet added to Review Board. > >> > Web user interfaces are not my core competence. Therefore any Java > >> > Script magic is welcome :-) > >> > I implemented a "New Review Request" form especially for my post- > >> > commit needs. The Upload diff form is the same at the moment. > > >> > Greetings from Germany, > >> > Phil
Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Hi Jan, I neither use post-review nor the rbtools. I decided to slightly extend the SCM tool concept and derived a new class from SVNTool. This new SCM tool provides functionality like diff file creation or generation of revisions which are not yet added to Review Board. Web user interfaces are not my core competence. Therefore any Java Script magic is welcome :-) I implemented a "New Review Request" form especially for my post- commit needs. The Upload diff form is the same at the moment. Greetings from Germany, Philipp On Apr 8, 5:33 pm, Jan Koprowski wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > Are You simply running post-review under the scene or somehow import > Python classes from rbtools and call appropriate method? > I will also a little bit improve UI leaving "New Review Request" but > modifying it just extending window by some "Java Script" tab > likehttp://jqueryui.com/demos/tabs/e.g.: > Upload diff > Enter revisions > > Greetings from Poland, > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Philipp Henkel > > > > > > wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > Most probably moving to 1.6 code line is not much effort. At least I > > tried to keep my changes to the main code base small. At the moment > > I'm fully focused on adding more feature and therefore I have not yet > > evaluated 1.6. > > Regarding scmbug: Parsing the svn log is not a big deal and not much > > overhead as all data is already cached. If a regex is used to extract > > bug numbers this is good candidate for an official feature in my > > opinion. > > > Have a nice weekend, > > Philipp > > > -- > > Philipp Henkel > > Citrix Online -www.citrixonline.com > > > On Apr 8, 10:22 am, Rob Coward wrote: > >> Hi Philipp, > > >> This looks like a great feature - our dev teams work > >> by checking in code at the end of each day, so being able to do a > >> post-commit review over multiple revisions would be a killer feature for > >> us. I'm currently evaluating the 1.6beta1 version - would there be much > >> involved in porting your changes up to the 1.6 code base ? > > >> We use > >> scmbug to integrate SVN with bugzilla, so our checkin comments have a > >> consistent format - what would be involved in getting your code to use a > >> RE pattern to parse bug numbers out of the revision comments and > >> automatically add them to the review ? > > >> Looking forward to seeing this > >> functionality integrated into the main codebase. > > >> Rob > > >> On Thu, 7 Apr > >> 2011 05:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > In order > > >> to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I> created a > > >> customized version of Review Board 1.5.> I integrated a new request > > >> creation form into the web user interface > > >> > and extended the Subversion > >> SCM tool. > > >> > The creation of a new request is now as simple as > >> follows: > >> > - Select a repository which features post-commit - at the > >> moment > >> > Subversion only > >> > - Hit "Show my pending revisions" to get list > >> of your latest code > >> > changes > >> > - Select one or more of your revisions > >> from the list > >> > - Hit "Create" button to automatically build up the > >> request > > >> > My changes are fully compatible with Review Board 1.5. I > >> did not add > >> > new database tables nor colums. Therefore you can easily > >> install post- > >> > reviewboard over your 1.5 installation. > > >> > The source, > > >> more information and a screenshot is available at > > >>http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard[1] > > >> > Of course, any > > >> feedback is appreciated! > > >> > Best regards, > >> > Philipp > > >> Links: > >> -- > >> [1]http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard > > > -- > > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today > > athttp://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > > -- > > > > ><> Jan Koprowski -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know 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: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Hi Rob, Most probably moving to 1.6 code line is not much effort. At least I tried to keep my changes to the main code base small. At the moment I'm fully focused on adding more feature and therefore I have not yet evaluated 1.6. Regarding scmbug: Parsing the svn log is not a big deal and not much overhead as all data is already cached. If a regex is used to extract bug numbers this is good candidate for an official feature in my opinion. Have a nice weekend, Philipp -- Philipp Henkel Citrix Online - www.citrixonline.com On Apr 8, 10:22 am, Rob Coward wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > This looks like a great feature - our dev teams work > by checking in code at the end of each day, so being able to do a > post-commit review over multiple revisions would be a killer feature for > us. I'm currently evaluating the 1.6beta1 version - would there be much > involved in porting your changes up to the 1.6 code base ? > > We use > scmbug to integrate SVN with bugzilla, so our checkin comments have a > consistent format - what would be involved in getting your code to use a > RE pattern to parse bug numbers out of the revision comments and > automatically add them to the review ? > > Looking forward to seeing this > functionality integrated into the main codebase. > > Rob > > On Thu, 7 Apr > 2011 05:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote: > > > Hi, > > > In order > > to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I> created a > > customized version of Review Board 1.5.> I integrated a new request > > creation form into the web user interface > > > > > and extended the Subversion > SCM tool. > > > The creation of a new request is now as simple as > follows: > > - Select a repository which features post-commit - at the > moment > > Subversion only > > - Hit "Show my pending revisions" to get list > of your latest code > > changes > > - Select one or more of your revisions > from the list > > - Hit "Create" button to automatically build up the > request > > > My changes are fully compatible with Review Board 1.5. I > did not add > > new database tables nor colums. Therefore you can easily > install post- > > reviewboard over your 1.5 installation. > > > The source, > > more information and a screenshot is available at > > http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard[1] > > > Of course, any > > feedback is appreciated! > > > > > Best regards, > > Philipp > > Links: > -- > [1]http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today 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: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
That sounds great. Indeed it would be nice to merge this feature into the official code line and I'm willing to assist. Looking forward to your feedback. Philipp -- Philipp Henkel Citrix Online - www.citrixonline.com The views expressed here are mine alone and have not been authorized by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, Citrix. On Apr 7, 11:20 pm, Christian Hammond wrote: > Awesome! This is something we've wanted for a while, and even had a couple > student projects to try to figure it out. I'd love to work on getting this > into Review Board. Will look through the code after I'm back from my little > vacation :) > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Philipp Henkel > > > > wrote: > > Hi, > > > In order to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I > > created a customized version of Review Board 1.5. > > I integrated a new request creation form into the web user interface > > and extended the Subversion SCM tool. > > > The creation of a new request is now as simple as follows: > > - Select a repository which features post-commit - at the moment > > Subversion only > > - Hit "Show my pending revisions" to get list of your latest code > > changes > > - Select one or more of your revisions from the list > > - Hit "Create" button to automatically build up the request > > > My changes are fully compatible with Review Board 1.5. I did not add > > new database tables nor colums. Therefore you can easily install post- > > reviewboard over your 1.5 installation. > > > The source, more information and a screenshot is available at > >http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard > > > Of course, any feedback is appreciated! > > > Best regards, > > Philipp > > > -- > > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at > >http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- 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: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
I think it is easy to support additional centralized SCMs. I already did it for Perforce and Microsoft TFS in a previous version. As far as I know there is no similar project for Git. However, it should be possible to extend post-reviewboard to handle Git as well. So far I have not looked into Review Board's Git support and therefore I can't tell if there are any conceptual issues. Philipp On Apr 7, 8:58 pm, Vincent Yee wrote: > Good work! How about CVS? > > > From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Martin > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:53 AM > To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews > > Congratulations, I saw you customization and is great. > Do you know if there is something like that for git? > > Thanks in advance. > > Martin. > -- > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today > athttp://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- 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
Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Hi, In order to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I created a customized version of Review Board 1.5. I integrated a new request creation form into the web user interface and extended the Subversion SCM tool. The creation of a new request is now as simple as follows: - Select a repository which features post-commit - at the moment Subversion only - Hit "Show my pending revisions" to get list of your latest code changes - Select one or more of your revisions from the list - Hit "Create" button to automatically build up the request My changes are fully compatible with Review Board 1.5. I did not add new database tables nor colums. Therefore you can easily install post- reviewboard over your 1.5 installation. The source, more information and a screenshot is available at http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard Of course, any feedback is appreciated! Best regards, Philipp -- 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: Happy user
My TFS solution is based on the Java command line client. After reducing the number of TFS commands per review request the performance is quite acceptable. Philipp On Aug 27, 12:26 pm, "Timothy Pinet" wrote: > I am quite interested to hear how you enabled TFS. Please share :) > > Tim > > -Original Message- > From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewbo...@googlegroups.com] On > > Behalf Of Philipp Henkel > Sent: August-27-10 4:34 AM > To: reviewboard > Subject: Happy user > > Dear Review Board developers, > > I would like to thank you! Review Board is well programmed and easily > extensible. We are using a customized version since over a year and > had several thousand successful reviews with less pain :) > > I implemented post review functionality for both TFS and Perforce in > the web user interface. A review request can be easily created by > selecting changesets from a list. Developers don't have to create > diffs manually and the post-review script is not needed. > I would like to contribute my changes back to you. Is the creation of > a custom fork a good option to start with? > > If you like you can add Nero to your "Happy user" page. > "Nero - Creator of liquid media technology, enables content creation > and distribution on any device" > > Kind regards, > Philipp > > -- > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today > athttp://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- 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
Happy user
Dear Review Board developers, I would like to thank you! Review Board is well programmed and easily extensible. We are using a customized version since over a year and had several thousand successful reviews with less pain :) I implemented post review functionality for both TFS and Perforce in the web user interface. A review request can be easily created by selecting changesets from a list. Developers don't have to create diffs manually and the post-review script is not needed. I would like to contribute my changes back to you. Is the creation of a custom fork a good option to start with? If you like you can add Nero to your "Happy user" page. "Nero - Creator of liquid media technology, enables content creation and distribution on any device" Kind regards, Philipp -- 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: ReviewBoard + GIT Integration
I'm wondering if the web interface could also be used for git. Today I
tried to create a "New Review Request" using the web interface on
http://reviews.review-board.org and failed miserably. I'm new to git
and as I have never used git with RB I'm wondering if git diffs are
fully supported through the web interface.
My diff was always rejected with the following error message:
The file 'reviewboard/diffviewer/forms.py' (r36800c1) could not be
found in the repository
The diff was produced with "$ git diff"
diff --git a/reviewboard/diffviewer/forms.py b/reviewboard/diffviewer/
forms.py
index 36800c1..9d9a1c1 100644
--- a/reviewboard/diffviewer/forms.py
+++ b/reviewboard/diffviewer/forms.py
@@ -127,6 +127,8 @@ class UploadDiffForm(forms.Form):
tool = self.repository.get_scmtool()
for f in tool.get_parser(file.read()).parse():
+if f.binary:
+continue
f2, revision = tool.parse_diff_revision(f.origFile,
f.origInfo)
if f2.startswith("/"):
filename = f2
Thanks in advance,
Philipp
On Sep 16, 1:25 am, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> On 2009-09-15 18:07, Kunjal wrote:
>
> > We already have RB integrated with Perforce and it is working cool.
> > Now, we have some developers working in GIT and we want to review that
> > code as well.
> > What are the steps developer should perform to get the diff and post
> > the review?
>
> Save yourself a whole lot of trouble and use post-review :-).
>
> Or to answer your question more literally, here are the steps:
> $ post-review -d #
>
> ...and you can omit -d if you don't want the noise of seeing what it is
> doing. (You'll also need to install RBTools once per machine, or else
> just snag postreview.py and make sure everyone has a copy.)
>
> --
> Matthew
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Plans to improve post commit support for Perforce
Hello, I plan to extend RB's post commit support in the web user interface. As we are using Perforce I'm focused on this SCM system only. Nevertheless I would like to know if there plans to smoothly integrate post commit handling in the web interface officially. In the official roadmap document I did not find any items going in this direction: http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/wiki/Roadmap However, other users also wish such functionality, e.g. http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=100 Will post commits be better supported short-term? Best regards, Philipp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com 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: How to connect comments and changes?
Hi Scott, That's exactly the functionality I was looking for. Great! Now even my review request pages provide a good overview. :-) It would be helpful to underline this feature in the documentation / user guide / Commenting on Lines: Commenting on Lines To comment on a line on a diff, simply click the line number. A comment dialog will appear giving you a text entry for writing your comment. When you’re done, you can click Save to save the comment. Furthermore you can assign a comment to multiple code lines. This option is especially useful to provide additional code context to discussions as all commented code will appear on the review request page. To create a multiple line comment go to the line number column and hold down the mouse to mark multiple lines. Do not exit the line number column while marking the lines. Currently I don't have access to the RB svn repository. I will check if the documentation is contained in the repository and submit a "documentation patch" later. Philipp On Aug 11, 6:04 pm, Scott Quesnelle wrote: > Hey Philipp, > > When you post a comment, instead of clicking on a single line, you can click > and drag over a group of lines, and then that whole set of lines shows up > for extra context. > > We have found its useful to have that functionality since it allows the user > to tailor the amount of context necessary for the comments. > > Scott > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Philipp Henkel > wrote: > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > Thanks for pointing out that the diff viewer is not the right place > > for tracking changes and discussions. > > I understand that tracking comments across revisions is difficult. > > However, I was asking because some of the commercial review tools > > provide such functionality. > > If it is recommended to use mainly the review request page I have > > another first-time user question: Would it be possible to show more > > code context on this page? One line of code is fairly small in the > > context of a big review session. > > > Best regards, > > Philipp > > > On Aug 7, 10:37 pm, Christian Hammond wrote: > > > Hi Philipp, > > > > All the discussion on a series of changes takes place on the review > > > request's page. You shouldn't really use the diff viewer for this. > > Migrating > > > comments across revisions of a diff is incredibly hard and impossible to > > do > > > successfully, consistently. You can't guarantee the lines will match up > > in > > > any way, and you could end up dropping comments or moving them onto the > > > wrong lines. They also might just be irrelevant. > > > > We don't have any plans at all to even attempt something like this, as > > > that's really what the review request page is for. You can see a timeline > > of > > > all the reviews, the affected code, and you can always click on the > > header > > > for the block of code to jump to the right place in the diff. > > > > Christian > > > > -- > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Philipp Henkel > >wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I'm new to Review Board and I would like to use it in combination with > > > > Perforce and post-review. > > > > > There seems to be no strong connection of comments and code changes. > > > > In Diff View comments seem to be bound to single diffs. When you add a > > > > new diff it is difficult to match old comments and new changes because > > > > you don't see the previous comments. Questions like "Is every issue > > > > addressed?" or "What is the reason for that change?" cannot be > > > > answered immediately. You always have to go back to one of the > > > > previous diffs and search for the discussion. > > > > > Our current review work flow is like this: > > > > 1. Create new request: add a large diff using post-review (might be a > > > > complete new feature) > > > > 2. Reviewer and Coder add comments to this diff > > > > 3. Coder applies changes and adds an updated diff using post-review > > > > 4. Reviewer is satisfied -> go to 5 or next iteration is started -> > > > > go to 2. > > > > 5. Review done > > > > > I know that RB is optimized for pre-commits
Re: How to connect comments and changes?
Hi Christian, Thanks for pointing out that the diff viewer is not the right place for tracking changes and discussions. I understand that tracking comments across revisions is difficult. However, I was asking because some of the commercial review tools provide such functionality. If it is recommended to use mainly the review request page I have another first-time user question: Would it be possible to show more code context on this page? One line of code is fairly small in the context of a big review session. Best regards, Philipp On Aug 7, 10:37 pm, Christian Hammond wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > All the discussion on a series of changes takes place on the review > request's page. You shouldn't really use the diff viewer for this. Migrating > comments across revisions of a diff is incredibly hard and impossible to do > successfully, consistently. You can't guarantee the lines will match up in > any way, and you could end up dropping comments or moving them onto the > wrong lines. They also might just be irrelevant. > > We don't have any plans at all to even attempt something like this, as > that's really what the review request page is for. You can see a timeline of > all the reviews, the affected code, and you can always click on the header > for the block of code to jump to the right place in the diff. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Philipp Henkel > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > I'm new to Review Board and I would like to use it in combination with > > Perforce and post-review. > > > There seems to be no strong connection of comments and code changes. > > In Diff View comments seem to be bound to single diffs. When you add a > > new diff it is difficult to match old comments and new changes because > > you don't see the previous comments. Questions like "Is every issue > > addressed?" or "What is the reason for that change?" cannot be > > answered immediately. You always have to go back to one of the > > previous diffs and search for the discussion. > > > Our current review work flow is like this: > > 1. Create new request: add a large diff using post-review (might be a > > complete new feature) > > 2. Reviewer and Coder add comments to this diff > > 3. Coder applies changes and adds an updated diff using post-review > > 4. Reviewer is satisfied -> go to 5 or next iteration is started -> > > go to 2. > > 5. Review done > > > I know that RB is optimized for pre-commits and I assume that those > > pre-commits reviews tend to be much smaller than post-commits ones. > > However, perhaps there is a simple solution to my problem if I > > slightly change the work flow. Did I overlook something? Is it > > possible to show older comments in the latest diff? Would this be a > > nice feature? > > > Best regards, > > Philipp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
How to connect comments and changes?
Hello, I'm new to Review Board and I would like to use it in combination with Perforce and post-review. There seems to be no strong connection of comments and code changes. In Diff View comments seem to be bound to single diffs. When you add a new diff it is difficult to match old comments and new changes because you don't see the previous comments. Questions like "Is every issue addressed?" or "What is the reason for that change?" cannot be answered immediately. You always have to go back to one of the previous diffs and search for the discussion. Our current review work flow is like this: 1. Create new request: add a large diff using post-review (might be a complete new feature) 2. Reviewer and Coder add comments to this diff 3. Coder applies changes and adds an updated diff using post-review 4. Reviewer is satisfied -> go to 5 or next iteration is started -> go to 2. 5. Review done I know that RB is optimized for pre-commits and I assume that those pre-commits reviews tend to be much smaller than post-commits ones. However, perhaps there is a simple solution to my problem if I slightly change the work flow. Did I overlook something? Is it possible to show older comments in the latest diff? Would this be a nice feature? Best regards, Philipp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com 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: Perforce server security level error when post a review
Hi,
p4.run_login() is working for me if I set the user and password before
each p4 login again. P4 seems to loose the values set in __init__
def _connect(self):
if not self.p4.connected():
self.p4.connect()
self.p4.user = self.user
self.p4.password = self.password
self.p4.run_login()
Furthermore I had to disable the usage of passwords in method
get_file to get RB fully working with Perforce:
#if self.p4.password:
#cmdline.extend(['-P', self.p4.password])
Wouldn't it be a good idea to support both Perforce access approaches
right from the scratch? If someone is interested in this I'm willing
to help.
Best regards,
Philipp
On Jul 21, 1:13 am, Yongqiang Li wrote:
> Thansk, Tom.
>
> Just as what you said, I need to modify the perforce.py and add run_login()
> just behind self.p4.connect() in function _connect().
>
> I tried the p4.run_login() but it didn't work.
> So I wrote my own run_login() as:
> ===
> def run_login(self):
> os.popen('echo %s | p4 -p %s -u %s login -a' % (self.p4.password,
> self.p4.port, self.p4.user))
> ===
>
> Then everything is OK! RB is great!
> Hope it's useful for other guys who have the same problem.
>
> Regards,
> Yongqiang
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Tom Sakkos wrote:
> > I wouldn't know where to put this in ReviewBoard, but it's probably
> > necessary to run "run_login()" on the p4 object immediately after running
> > "connect()."
>
> > -Tom
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Jason Lee wrote:
>
> >> Hi guys,
>
> >> I met another problem when post a perforce review.
>
> >> I install the RB on Windows.
> >> The command is : post-review.py -d 118527
> >> And then I met a perforce exception.
>
> >> The logs are below:
> >>
> >> P4Exception at /api/json/reviewrequests/new/
>
> >> [P4#run] Errors during command execution( "p4 describe -s 118527" )
>
> >> [Error]: Password not allowed at this server security level, use
> >> 'p4
> >> login'.
>
> >> Request Method: POST
> >> Request URL: http://127.0.0.1:80/api/json/reviewrequests/new/
> >> Exception Type: P4Exception
> >> Exception Value:
>
> >> [P4#run] Errors during command execution( "p4 describe -s 118527" )
>
> >> [Error]: Password not allowed at this server security level, use
> >> 'p4
> >> login'.
>
> >> Exception Location: C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\P4.py in run, line
> >> 284
> >> Python Executable: D:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation
> >> \Apache2.2\bin\httpd.exe
> >> Python Version: 2.5.4
> >> Python Path:
> >> Server time: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:56:01 +0800
> >> ===
>
> >> I think that's because of the higher P4 server security level. Because
> >> when I use my own perforce server with default security level, I can
> >> post the review successfully.
>
> >> Anyone knows how to fix this problem?
> >> Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
