Re: Merging/combining two Reviewboard servers together
Thanks, Christian! I suspected as much. Import/export may help with doing this, but we'll discuss internally to see how we want to proceed. Worse case, we'll just run and maintain multiple instances. Thanks again! ~Rob On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Christian Hammond wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Sorry for the late response here. > > There isn't really a way of doing this right now. We do have import/export > capabilities being worked on for Power Pack, but as review requests rely on > IDs, and two cannot share the same IDs, you'll be limited to one of two > options: > > 1. Changing the IDs on all review requests being merged in. > 2. Putting the review requests in their own Local Site (a sort of > self-contained partition within a Review Board server). This would alter > the URLs, but preserve the review request IDs. The IDs for reviews, > comments, etc. would not be preserved. > > This feature is still in development. We've been working with support > customers on testing it as we continue to develop it. If you were to use > it, I'd advise testing it thoroughly on a test copy of the server and > databases. > > Christian > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:12 PM rob@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Has anyone tried to merge two reviewboard servers together? We've >> recently acquired a new one, and are looking for ways to combine them into >> a single server, if possible. >> >> I'm assuming it's not (or if it is, it's very extremely complex) but just >> thought I'd ask first. >> >> ~Rob >> >> -- >> 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. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/d17cd058-c75e-4294-a310-12550bf0b46bn%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/d17cd058-c75e-4294-a310-12550bf0b46bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > Christian Hammond > President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/> > Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/> > > -- > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Review Board Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/A4aDFMNRfQE/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAE7Vnd%3D8027iQff1GFnQgxYNHN5Jog_AbeMVzhzwHcyZvJ7u7w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CAE7Vnd%3D8027iQff1GFnQgxYNHN5Jog_AbeMVzhzwHcyZvJ7u7w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > -- <https://about.me/robpetti?promo=email_sig_source=product_medium=email_sig_campaign=gmail_api_content=thumb> Rob Petti about.me/robpetti <https://about.me/robpetti?promo=email_sig_source=product_medium=email_sig_campaign=gmail_api_content=thumb> -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CABH9TsJbNMNKA8VmZ9mXKO6h2h886G6Md0r189MfK8f-z7%3DiWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Merging/combining two Reviewboard servers together
Hi All, Has anyone tried to merge two reviewboard servers together? We've recently acquired a new one, and are looking for ways to combine them into a single server, if possible. I'm assuming it's not (or if it is, it's very extremely complex) but just thought I'd ask first. ~Rob -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/d17cd058-c75e-4294-a310-12550bf0b46bn%40googlegroups.com.
Bug in review-requests list API when filtering by an inactive user
Hi all, I'm having an issue with the review-requests list api. I'm attempting to list all the review requests made by an inactive user: http://rbserver/api/review-requests/?from-user=someuser=pending This works fine if the user is active, but if the user is inactive it will always return 0 results. I'm having to activate the user before getting the request and deactivating them after. Is this a known issue? Thanks, ~Rob -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/44855a7c-8195-47cd-829c-002918cc37e2n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: Cannot load commits from hgweb when using strange branch name
Thanks, André
We had the user rename the branch instead and that seemed to work. Your fix
looks fine (though I'm also not able to test it) so hopefully the devs will
put it into a release in the future.
~Rob
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:59 AM André Klitzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems your branch name needs url encoding. Maybe you could try this
> quickfix.
> I did not test it as I don't have a development environment at the moment.
> So sorry if it throws errors.
>
> diff --git a/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py b/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py
> index bbf70cd7c..1e3fca175 100644
> --- a/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py
> +++ b/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py
> @@ -378,7 +378,8 @@ class HgWebClient(SCMClient):
> if start:
> query_parts.append('ancestors(%s)' % start)
>
> -query_parts.append('branch(%s)' % (branch or '.'))
> +import urllib.parse
> +query_parts.append('branch(%s)' %
> (urllib.parse.quote_plus(branch) or '.'))
>
> query = '+and+'.join(query_parts)
>
>
> --
> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Review Board Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/vdmj1o_moY8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/81cc588e-c12d-4ff5-a76b-466603cbc942%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/81cc588e-c12d-4ff5-a76b-466603cbc942%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
--
<https://about.me/robpetti?promo=email_sig_source=product_medium=email_sig_campaign=gmail_api_content=thumb>
Rob Petti
about.me/robpetti
<https://about.me/robpetti?promo=email_sig_source=product_medium=email_sig_campaign=gmail_api_content=thumb>
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/CABH9TsJ8enkBp_%3DD2z70FxdEWbNF8OhvgqvGJW1NrDWjrpupfg%40mail.gmail.com.
Cannot load commits from hgweb when using strange branch name
Hi Folks, I'm currently running into the following issue when trying to view changes in a particular mercurial branch. No changes show up and no error message is visible in the UI. The server log dumps this out: 2020-02-04 15:47:22,688 - ERROR - - root - Cannot load commits from hgweb: Unexpected error fetching file from http://mercurial.XX.net/xx/x/json-log/?rev=ancestors(08d863d1ad70a60fcae7afe9394206fb2d2c0fac)+and+branch(X-12371 & X-10577): URL can't contain control characters. u'/xx/xx/json-log/?rev=ancestors(08d863d1ad70a60fcae7afe9394206fb2d2c0fac)+and+branch(X-12371 & X-10577)' (found at least u' ') Traceback (most recent call last): File "/opt/venv/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/scmtools/hg.py", line 386, in get_commits contents = self.get_file_http(url, '', '', 'application/json') File "/opt/venv/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/scmtools/core.py", line 1163, in get_file_ http raise SCMError(msg) I'm guessing it's having difficulty handling the branch name "X-12371 & X-10577"? Other branches don't seem to have this issue. ~Rob -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/1669d03e-058b-4b9b-b27f-d12ff7c128f4%40googlegroups.com.
Re: "There was an error displaying this diff" when diffing a file that contains a "#" in the filename.
Hey Folks,
I've managed to narrow it down some more. It appears to be a problem in
scmtools/svn/pysvn.py.
def _do_on_path(self, cb, path, revision=HEAD):
if not path:
raise FileNotFoundError(path, revision)
try:
# path ==
"src/cws/QMS/Entities/NonconformanceBase#cws-nativeentity#.cws"
normpath = self.normalize_path(path)
# normpath ==
"https://subversion.ourdomain.net/repos/bpm-spa/trunk/applications/qualitycenter/src/cws/QMS/Entities/NonconformanceBase#cws-nativeentity#.cws;
# SVN expects to have URLs escaped. Take care to only
# escape the path part of the URL.
if self.client.is_url(normpath):
pathtuple = urlsplit(normpath)
path = pathtuple[2]
if isinstance(path, six.text_type):
path = path.encode('utf-8', 'ignore')
normpath = urlunsplit((pathtuple[0],
pathtuple[1],
quote(path),
'', ''))
# normpath ==
"https://subversion.ourdomain.net/repos/bpm-spa/trunk/applications/qualitycenter/src/cws/QMS/Entities/NonconformanceBase;
normrev = self._normalize_revision(revision)
return cb(normpath, normrev)
As you can see, it combines the path naively into a URL without escaping
any characters, then tries to parse it as a URL to URL-escape the path
portion of it, which obviously won't work.
I was able to fix my problem by changing the code as below. It didn't make
any sense to me that it would parse it as a URL before escaping it, so I
removed that whole section of the code and just encoded the file path
before normalizing it.
def _do_on_path(self, cb, path, revision=HEAD):
if not path:
raise FileNotFoundError(path, revision)
try:
normpath = self.normalize_path(quote(path.encode('utf-8',
'ignore')))
normrev = self._normalize_revision(revision)
return cb(normpath, normrev)
If this makes sense, should I open a review with my proposed changes?
On Thursday, 22 August 2019 13:34:16 UTC-6, Rob Petti wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> We're having an issue with one of our SVN repositories right now. It
> appears almost as if ReviewBoard can't handle files that contain "#" in
> their names. I've attached a screenshot of the error. Of particular note is
> that the error seems to suggest that it's truncating the filename from '#'
> and erroneously trying to use that to locate the file in the repository.
>
> Would anyone know how to overcome this problem? Obviously we could work
> around it by changing the file names, but this is a naming convention
> that's required by our product and cannot be changed.
>
> Thanks!
> ~Rob
>
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/533d838b-61ab-4263-a1c6-2dbd3a0b61e7%40googlegroups.com.
"There was an error displaying this diff" when diffing a file that contains a "#" in the filename.
Hi Folks, We're having an issue with one of our SVN repositories right now. It appears almost as if ReviewBoard can't handle files that contain "#" in their names. I've attached a screenshot of the error. Of particular note is that the error seems to suggest that it's truncating the filename from '#' and erroneously trying to use that to locate the file in the repository. Would anyone know how to overcome this problem? Obviously we could work around it by changing the file names, but this is a naming convention that's required by our product and cannot be changed. Thanks! ~Rob -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/9c1c7ba7-0581-4bd2-98b0-d6d584241c7f%40googlegroups.com.
Re: "Unrecognized URL scheme" for http SVN urls
It looks like my hunch was correct. The person who originally configured
this server used a yum repo from "Wandisco" in order to install subversion,
and apparently it libraries did not play nicely with the libraries used by
wsgi or reviewboard. I removed the repo, downgraded subversion to the
version provided by the distribution, recompiled pysvn, and everything
appears to be working fine now!
Thanks for the help! Telling me that it was an error directly from libsvn
was enough to set me on the right track. :)
~Rob
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Rob Petti <rob.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rbt diff
> Index: /16.4.0/run-tests.js
> ===
> --- /16.4.0/run-tests.js(revision 1315)
> +++ /16.4.0/run-tests.js(working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> +//test
> var appconfig = require(process.env.CCE2E_APPCONFIG_FILE ||
> "./config/config.json");
> var variables = require("./config/variables.json");
> var elelocator = require("./config/elements_locator.json");
> @@ -93,4 +94,4 @@
> takeScreenShotsOnlyForFailedSpecs: true
> }));
> }
> -};
> \ No newline at end of file
> +};
>
> We also noticed that the error presents itself in the WebUI on the new
> review screen before even selecting any files or diffs, so it doesn't seem
> related to the diffing:
>
>
> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xv-5iuE6w74/WnM9tEqc3WI/Bn0/npbwAsbI83491plipXi6tVHBg7zmP64aQCLcBGAs/s1600/rb-error.PNG>
> I did some more digging of my own, and I suspect it's a shared library
> loading issue, since the same error is thrown when libsvn_ra_serf can't be
> located or loaded. When I run basically the same pysvn API code directly
> from python it works fine, but from Apache mod_wsgi or uwsgi it fails. I
> may end up having to recompile the whole stack.
>
>
> On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 20:08:03 UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Let's make sure it doesn't have to do with file-based lookups. We may
>> need to run some tests. First, can you generate a diff with `rbt diff`, and
>> then check the resulting diff for the run-tests.js file. I need the "---",
>> "+++", and "Index:" lines for that entry.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Rob Petti <rob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> I tested pysvn on our server by just using it to successfully checkout
>>> the repo in question:
>>>
>>> [root@wlrbprod01 ~]# /usr/local/bin/python
>>> Python 2.7.5 (default, Nov 5 2017, 11:12:51)
>>> [GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18)] on linux2
>>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> >>> import pysvn
>>> >>> client = pysvn.Client()
>>> >>> client.checkout("http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0
>>> ","/tmp/test")
>>>
>>>
>>> The ReviewBoard logs don't show this failure or a trace for it, and I'm
>>> not sure how to get more debugging information out of it. As near as I can
>>> tell, both my test and reviewboard are using the exact same set of shared
>>> libraries for both pysvn and libsvn, including libsvn_ra_serf, which I
>>> believe provides the support for http schemas. This should be working, but
>>> I can't figure out why it isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 19:10:12 UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> This error is coming directly from libsvn (by way of PySVN).
>>>>
>>>> Can you show me the command line and PySVN testing you performed for
>>>> this on the server?
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Rob Petti <rob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently using ReviewBoard 2.5.16, and we're running into issues
>>>>> using it with http svn urls. Any time we try to post reviews we get this
>>>>> error back:
>>>>> Unrecognized URL scheme for 'http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/our
>>>>> project/16.4.0/run-tests.js' (HTTP 400, API Error 224)
>>>>>
>>>>> I already checked the svn CLI installed on the RB host server, and it
>>>>> has http/https support:
>>>>> [root@wlrbprod01 conf]# svn --version
&g
Re: "Unrecognized URL scheme" for http SVN urls
> rbt diff
Index: /16.4.0/run-tests.js
===
--- /16.4.0/run-tests.js(revision 1315)
+++ /16.4.0/run-tests.js(working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+//test
var appconfig = require(process.env.CCE2E_APPCONFIG_FILE ||
"./config/config.json");
var variables = require("./config/variables.json");
var elelocator = require("./config/elements_locator.json");
@@ -93,4 +94,4 @@
takeScreenShotsOnlyForFailedSpecs: true
}));
}
-};
\ No newline at end of file
+};
We also noticed that the error presents itself in the WebUI on the new
review screen before even selecting any files or diffs, so it doesn't seem
related to the diffing:
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xv-5iuE6w74/WnM9tEqc3WI/Bn0/npbwAsbI83491plipXi6tVHBg7zmP64aQCLcBGAs/s1600/rb-error.PNG>
I did some more digging of my own, and I suspect it's a shared library
loading issue, since the same error is thrown when libsvn_ra_serf can't be
located or loaded. When I run basically the same pysvn API code directly
from python it works fine, but from Apache mod_wsgi or uwsgi it fails. I
may end up having to recompile the whole stack.
On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 20:08:03 UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Let's make sure it doesn't have to do with file-based lookups. We may need
> to run some tests. First, can you generate a diff with `rbt diff`, and then
> check the resulting diff for the run-tests.js file. I need the "---",
> "+++", and "Index:" lines for that entry.
>
> Christian
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Rob Petti <rob@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> I tested pysvn on our server by just using it to successfully checkout
>> the repo in question:
>>
>> [root@wlrbprod01 ~]# /usr/local/bin/python
>> Python 2.7.5 (default, Nov 5 2017, 11:12:51)
>> [GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18)] on linux2
>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>> >>> import pysvn
>> >>> client = pysvn.Client()
>> >>> client.checkout("http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0
>> ","/tmp/test")
>>
>>
>> The ReviewBoard logs don't show this failure or a trace for it, and I'm
>> not sure how to get more debugging information out of it. As near as I can
>> tell, both my test and reviewboard are using the exact same set of shared
>> libraries for both pysvn and libsvn, including libsvn_ra_serf, which I
>> believe provides the support for http schemas. This should be working, but
>> I can't figure out why it isn't.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 19:10:12 UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> This error is coming directly from libsvn (by way of PySVN).
>>>
>>> Can you show me the command line and PySVN testing you performed for
>>> this on the server?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Rob Petti <rob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently using ReviewBoard 2.5.16, and we're running into issues
>>>> using it with http svn urls. Any time we try to post reviews we get this
>>>> error back:
>>>> Unrecognized URL scheme for '
>>>> http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0/run-tests.js' (HTTP 400,
>>>> API Error 224)
>>>>
>>>> I already checked the svn CLI installed on the RB host server, and it
>>>> has http/https support:
>>>> [root@wlrbprod01 conf]# svn --version
>>>> svn, version 1.8.19 (r1800620)
>>>>compiled Aug 10 2017, 22:07:28 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>>
>>>> Copyright (C) 2017 The Apache Software Foundation.
>>>> This software consists of contributions made by many people;
>>>> see the NOTICE file for more information.
>>>> Subversion is open source software, see http://subversion.apache.org/
>>>>
>>>> The following repository access (RA) modules are available:
>>>>
>>>> * ra_svn : Module for accessing a repository using the svn network
>>>> protocol.
>>>> - with Cyrus SASL authentication
>>>> - handles 'svn' scheme
>>>> * ra_local : Module for accessing a repository on local disk.
>>>> - handles 'file' scheme
>>>> * ra_serf : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol using
>>>>
"Unrecognized URL scheme" for http SVN urls
Hi there,
I'm currently using ReviewBoard 2.5.16, and we're running into issues using
it with http svn urls. Any time we try to post reviews we get this error
back:
Unrecognized URL scheme for
'http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0/run-tests.js' (HTTP 400, API
Error 224)
I already checked the svn CLI installed on the RB host server, and it has
http/https support:
[root@wlrbprod01 conf]# svn --version
svn, version 1.8.19 (r1800620)
compiled Aug 10 2017, 22:07:28 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Copyright (C) 2017 The Apache Software Foundation.
This software consists of contributions made by many people;
see the NOTICE file for more information.
Subversion is open source software, see http://subversion.apache.org/
The following repository access (RA) modules are available:
* ra_svn : Module for accessing a repository using the svn network protocol.
- with Cyrus SASL authentication
- handles 'svn' scheme
* ra_local : Module for accessing a repository on local disk.
- handles 'file' scheme
* ra_serf : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol using
serf.
- using serf 1.3.4
- handles 'http' scheme
- handles 'https' scheme
Additionally, I manually tested pysvn, and it also works with http urls.
I'm frankly at a loss here, so any assistance would be appreciated! The
host server is an RHEL6 machine with Python 2.7 installed. The full log
from rbt follows:
> rbt post -d -o
>>> RBTools 0.7.10
>>> Python 2.7.13 (v2.7.13:a06454b1afa1, Dec 17 2016, 20:42:59) [MSC v.1500
32 bit (Intel)]
>>> Running on Windows-10-10.0.14393
>>> Home = C:\Users\rpetti\AppData\Roaming
>>> Current directory = C:\Users\rpetti\Documents\rbtest
>>> Command line: rbt post -d -o
>>> Running: tf vc help
>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>>> Running: diff --version
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive --version -q
>>> repository info: Path: http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject, Base path:
/16.4.0, Supports changesets: False
>>> Making HTTP GET request to https://codereview.ourcomanydomain.com/api/
>>> Making HTTP GET request to
https://codereview.ourcomanydomain.com/api/repositories/?tool=Subversion
>>> Cached response for HTTP GET
https://codereview.ourcomanydomain.com/api/repositories/?tool=Subversion
expired and was modified
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>>> Running: diff --version
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive --version -q
>>> repository info: Path: http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject, Base path:
/16.4.0, Supports changesets: False
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive status -q --ignore-externals
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry
-r BASE
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info run-tests.js
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry
-r BASE --no-diff-deleted
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info run-tests.js
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info run-tests.js
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info run-tests.js
>>> Making HTTP GET request to
https://codereview.ourcomanydomain.com/api/validation/diffs/
>>> Cached response for HTTP GET
https://codereview.ourcomanydomain.com/api/validation/diffs/ expired and
was modified
>>> Making HTTP POST request to
https://codereview.ourcomanydomain.com/api/validation/diffs/
>>> Got API Error 224 (HTTP code 400): Unrecognized URL scheme for
'http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0/run-tests.js'
>>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'err': {u'msg': u"Unrecognized URL
scheme for 'http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0/run-tests.js'",
u'code': 224}}
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Program Files
(x86)\RBTools\bin\..\Python27\Scripts\rbt-script.py", line 11, in
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.10', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
File "C:\Program Files
(x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.7.10-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\main.py",
line 133, in main
command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
File "C:\Program Files
(x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.7.10-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\__init__.py",
line 663, in run_from_argv
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File "C:\Program Files
(x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.7.10-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\post.py",
line 812, in main
(msg_prefix, e))
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error validating diff
Unrecognized URL scheme for
'http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/svn/ourproject/16.4.0/run-tests.js' (HTTP 400, API
Error 224)
~Rob
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out
Re: ReviewBoard search question
Ok great, thanks! Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Nov 2017, at 20:49, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote: > > The fix will be included in 2.5.17 and 3.0.1. I expect we’ll get 2.5.17 out > in about a week. > > Christian > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:31 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard >> <reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> Hi Christian, >> >> Thanks for the quick reply. >> Would it be possible to let me know when this change (back) has been made >> please? Or should I keep an eye out for the change on future releases? >> >> Thanks >> Rob >> >> >>> On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 09:41:24 UTC, Rob Backhurst wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We are running RB 2.5.16 and have noticed some changes in the search >>> functionality from previous versions. >>> >>> What is the intended behaviour of the search? >>> Should the Search API and/or the "quick search" include review requests >>> marked as submitted? >>> If not, when was this changed and is there a reason for the change? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Rob >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > -- > Christian Hammond > President/CEO of Beanbag > Makers of Review Board > -- > 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 a topic in the Google > Groups "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/hq0CXl-AXpg/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. -- 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: ReviewBoard search question
Hi Christian, Thanks for the quick reply. Would it be possible to let me know when this change (back) has been made please? Or should I keep an eye out for the change on future releases? Thanks Rob On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 09:41:24 UTC, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > Hi, > > We are running RB 2.5.16 and have noticed some changes in the search > functionality from previous versions. > > What is the intended behaviour of the search? > Should the Search API and/or the "quick search" include review requests > marked as submitted? > If not, when was this changed and is there a reason for the change? > > Thanks > Rob > -- 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.
ReviewBoard search question
Hi, We are running RB 2.5.16 and have noticed some changes in the search functionality from previous versions. What is the intended behaviour of the search? Should the Search API and/or the "quick search" include review requests marked as submitted? If not, when was this changed and is there a reason for the change? Thanks Rob -- 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: Long lines get cut off in diff view
The user reports that they can work-around it by zooming out and in with CTRL and -, then CTRL and 0, or by maximizing and restoring. So it would seem that triggering a relayout fixes it for them. Thanks for looking into it! On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Christian Hammond < christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote: > Looks like the lines are missing a character or two. I have seen this > once, and when I looked, it was a quirk with how the browser chose to wrap > vs. extend the container for the line. I’ll keep my eye open and see if I > can reproduce and figure out the issue, but it was non-obvious last time. > > What I did find was resizing the window would trigger a relayout, > resolving the problem. I’d be curious if this works around the issue for > you. > > Christian > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 16:24 Rob Petti <rob.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's odd... Here's the attachment again. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Christian Hammond < >> christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> Unfortunately that screenshot didn’t go through for me. Looks like it’s >>> some inline thing instead of an attachment. Can you try re-attaching? >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:09 Rob Petti <rob.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> One of my users is having a strange issue with the diff viewer in >>>> ReviewBoard 2.5.16. When long lines wrap, part of the text near the edge of >>>> the view gets cut off. >>>> >>>> They claim it happens in Chrome 62 and Firefox 57, but I was only able >>>> to reproduce the problem in IE 11. >>>> >>>> Any ideas on what the issue might be, or how to resolve it? >>>> >>>> [image: image001.jpg] >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Christian Hammond >>> President/CEO of Beanbag >>> Makers of Review Board >>> >> -- >>> 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 a topic in the >>> Google Groups "reviewboard" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>> topic/reviewboard/E_QhfFCtm0Q/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. >>> >> -- >> 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. >> > -- > -- > Christian Hammond > President/CEO of Beanbag > Makers of Review Board > > -- > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/reviewboard/E_QhfFCtm0Q/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. > -- 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: Long lines get cut off in diff view
That's odd... Here's the attachment again. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com > wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Unfortunately that screenshot didn’t go through for me. Looks like it’s > some inline thing instead of an attachment. Can you try re-attaching? > > Christian > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:09 Rob Petti <rob.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> One of my users is having a strange issue with the diff viewer in >> ReviewBoard 2.5.16. When long lines wrap, part of the text near the edge of >> the view gets cut off. >> >> They claim it happens in Chrome 62 and Firefox 57, but I was only able to >> reproduce the problem in IE 11. >> >> Any ideas on what the issue might be, or how to resolve it? >> >> [image: image001.jpg] >> >> -- >> 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. >> > -- > -- > Christian Hammond > President/CEO of Beanbag > Makers of Review Board > > -- > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/reviewboard/E_QhfFCtm0Q/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. > -- 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.
Long lines get cut off in diff view
Hi all, One of my users is having a strange issue with the diff viewer in ReviewBoard 2.5.16. When long lines wrap, part of the text near the edge of the view gets cut off. They claim it happens in Chrome 62 and Firefox 57, but I was only able to reproduce the problem in IE 11. Any ideas on what the issue might be, or how to resolve it? [image: image001.jpg] -- 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: error: Setup script exited with error in cryptography setup command: Invalid environment marker: python_version < '3'
I just ran into this as well... Thankfully, I managed to fix it by updating to the latest setuptools using pip: pip install -U setuptools ~Rob On Sunday, 29 October 2017 01:18:46 UTC-6, Gabriel Ganam wrote: > > Help :) > > I'm trying to upgrade from 2.5.7 to 2.5.16, and when I ran the command: > easy_install -U ReviewBoard > > I got the following error: > error: Setup script exited with error in cryptography setup command: > Invalid environment marker: python_version < '3' > > Which is apparently from the "cryptography 2.1.2" installation. > > Thanks, > Gabriel. > -- 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: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Just to add, the index completed on our test system - thanks all for you
help with this.
Christian, do you know when this fix will be in a released version?
Also, this may need a separate case so please let me know if you would
rather I do that...
What is the intended behaviour of the search?
Should the Search API and/or the "quick search" include review requests
marked as submitted?
If not, when was this changed and why?
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 14:49:41 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Yep thanks, index looks to be running now.
> Hopefully it will get to the end this time - if so I'll make the same
> change on our live system.
>
> Cheers
> Rob
>
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 14:42:55 UTC+1, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> I'm guessing the if statement should be "if not ..." (i.e. not is
>> missing).
>>
>> // Erik
>>
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2017 12:44, "'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard" <
>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Ah yes sorry missed that...I have added it in but I get the same error
>> though.
>>
>> 81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through the
>> relation.
>> 82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
>> 83 current_object = obj
>> 84
>> 85 for attr in attrs:
>> 86 hasattr(current_object, attr)
>> 87
>> 88 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
>> 89 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s'
>> does not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>> 90
>> 91 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr,
>> None)
>> 92
>> 93 if current_object is None:
>> 94 if self.has_default():
>> 95 current_object = self._default
>> 96 # Fall out of the loop, given any further
>> attempts at
>>
>>
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 89, in
>> prepare
>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
>> '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>> haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
>> have a model_attr 'username'.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:02:54 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> That doesn't include the code I mentioned in my previous e-mail. Note
>>> the standalone 'hasattr' call on the line preceding the if statement. The
>>> workaround is to call that in a standalone way to prime a cache and avoid
>>> the error.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:17 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 77 # Give priority to a template.
>>>> 78 if self.use_template:
>>>> 79 return self.prepare_template(obj)
>>>> 80 elif self.model_attr is not None:
>>>> 81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through
>>>> the relation.
>>>> 82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
>>>> 83 current_object = obj
>>>> 84
>>>> 85 for attr in attrs:
>>>> 86 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
>>>> 87 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s'
>>>> does not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>>>> 88
>>>> 89 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr,
>>>> None)
>>>> 90
>>>> 91 if current_object is None:
>>>> 92 if self.has_default():
>>>> 93 current_object = self._default
>>>> 94 # Fall out of the loop, given any
>>>> further attempts at
>>>> 95 # accesses will fail misreably.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 06:28:49 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you show me all the code within about 5 lines of yo
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Yep thanks, index looks to be running now.
Hopefully it will get to the end this time - if so I'll make the same
change on our live system.
Cheers
Rob
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 14:42:55 UTC+1, Erik Johansson wrote:
>
> I'm guessing the if statement should be "if not ..." (i.e. not is missing).
>
> // Erik
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2017 12:44, "'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard" <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Ah yes sorry missed that...I have added it in but I get the same error
> though.
>
> 81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through the
> relation.
> 82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
> 83 current_object = obj
> 84
> 85 for attr in attrs:
> 86 hasattr(current_object, attr)
> 87
> 88 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
> 89 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s'
> does not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
> 90
> 91 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr,
> None)
> 92
> 93 if current_object is None:
> 94 if self.has_default():
> 95 current_object = self._default
> 96 # Fall out of the loop, given any further
> attempts at
>
>
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 89, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
> haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'username'.
>
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:02:54 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> That doesn't include the code I mentioned in my previous e-mail. Note the
>> standalone 'hasattr' call on the line preceding the if statement. The
>> workaround is to call that in a standalone way to prime a cache and avoid
>> the error.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:17 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 77 # Give priority to a template.
>>> 78 if self.use_template:
>>> 79 return self.prepare_template(obj)
>>> 80 elif self.model_attr is not None:
>>> 81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through
>>> the relation.
>>> 82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
>>> 83 current_object = obj
>>> 84
>>> 85 for attr in attrs:
>>> 86 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
>>> 87 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s'
>>> does not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>>> 88
>>> 89 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr,
>>> None)
>>> 90
>>> 91 if current_object is None:
>>> 92 if self.has_default():
>>> 93 current_object = self._default
>>> 94 # Fall out of the loop, given any
>>> further attempts at
>>> 95 # accesses will fail misreably.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 06:28:49 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you show me all the code within about 5 lines of your modification?
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 18:01 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>
>>>>> It crashes straight away with this error...
>>>>>
>>>>> Removing all documents from your index because you said so.
>>>>> All documents removed.
>>>>> Indexing 558 users
>>>>> ERROR:root:Error updating auth using default
>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>>
>>>>> line 188, in handle_label
>>>>> self.update_backend(label, u
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Chris,
Ah yes sorry missed that...I have added it in but I get the same error
though.
81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through the
relation.
82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
83 current_object = obj
84
85 for attr in attrs:
86 hasattr(current_object, attr)
87
88 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
89 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does
not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
90
91 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr, None)
92
93 if current_object is None:
94 if self.has_default():
95 current_object = self._default
96 # Fall out of the loop, given any further
attempts at
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 89, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
have a model_attr 'username'.
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:02:54 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> That doesn't include the code I mentioned in my previous e-mail. Note the
> standalone 'hasattr' call on the line preceding the if statement. The
> workaround is to call that in a standalone way to prime a cache and avoid
> the error.
>
> Christian
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:17 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> 77 # Give priority to a template.
>> 78 if self.use_template:
>> 79 return self.prepare_template(obj)
>> 80 elif self.model_attr is not None:
>> 81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through the
>> relation.
>> 82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
>> 83 current_object = obj
>> 84
>> 85 for attr in attrs:
>> 86 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
>> 87 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s'
>> does not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>> 88
>> 89 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr,
>> None)
>> 90
>> 91 if current_object is None:
>> 92 if self.has_default():
>> 93 current_object = self._default
>> 94 # Fall out of the loop, given any further
>> attempts at
>> 95 # accesses will fail misreably.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 06:28:49 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you show me all the code within about 5 lines of your modification?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 18:01 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>
>>>> It crashes straight away with this error...
>>>>
>>>> Removing all documents from your index because you said so.
>>>> All documents removed.
>>>> Indexing 558 users
>>>> ERROR:root:Error updating auth using default
>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 188, in handle_label
>>>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 233, in update_backend
>>>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
>>>> verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 96, in do_update
>>>> backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
>>>> line 196, in update
>>>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line
>>>> 21
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
77 # Give priority to a template.
78 if self.use_template:
79 return self.prepare_template(obj)
80 elif self.model_attr is not None:
81 # Check for `__` in the field for looking through the
relation.
82 attrs = self.model_attr.split('__')
83 current_object = obj
84
85 for attr in attrs:
86 if hasattr(current_object, attr):
87 raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does
not have a model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
88
89 current_object = getattr(current_object, attr, None)
90
91 if current_object is None:
92 if self.has_default():
93 current_object = self._default
94 # Fall out of the loop, given any further
attempts at
95 # accesses will fail misreably.
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 06:28:49 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Can you show me all the code within about 5 lines of your modification?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 18:01 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> It crashes straight away with this error...
>>
>> Removing all documents from your index because you said so.
>> All documents removed.
>> Indexing 558 users
>> ERROR:root:Error updating auth using default
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>
>> line 188, in handle_label
>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>
>> line 233, in update_backend
>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
>> verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>
>> line 96, in do_update
>> backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
>> line 196, in update
>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212,
>> in full_prepare
>> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203,
>> in prepare
>> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159,
>> in prepare
>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
>> prepare
>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
>> '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not have a model_attr
>> 'username'.
>> - show quoted text -
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159,
>> in prepare
>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
>> prepare
>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
>> '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>> haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
>> have a model_attr 'username'.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> On Monday, 16 October 2017 22:46:09 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Actually, this should function as a workaround for now. You can do this
>>> in that same Haystack file. Change the entirety of that previous code to:
>>>
>>> hasattr(current_object, attr)
>>>
>>> if hasattr(current_object, attr):
>>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a
>>> model_attr '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>>>
>>> What will happen is the initial hasattr will trigger the crash that's
>>> resulting in the failure, but we're discarding the result of the initial
>>> one. A lucky (in this case) side-effect is that only the first call on a
>>> given review request will fail, and the second will succeed (internal state
>
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Christian,
It crashes straight away with this error...
Removing all documents from your index because you said so.
All documents removed.
Indexing 558 users
ERROR:root:Error updating auth using default
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 188, in handle_label
self.update_backend(label, using)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 233, in update_backend
do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 96, in do_update
backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
line 196, in update
doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
SearchFieldError: The model '' does not have a model_attr
'username'.
- show quoted text -
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
have a model_attr 'username'.
Thanks
Rob
On Monday, 16 October 2017 22:46:09 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Actually, this should function as a workaround for now. You can do this in
> that same Haystack file. Change the entirety of that previous code to:
>
> hasattr(current_object, attr)
>
> if hasattr(current_object, attr):
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>
> What will happen is the initial hasattr will trigger the crash that's
> resulting in the failure, but we're discarding the result of the initial
> one. A lucky (in this case) side-effect is that only the first call on a
> given review request will fail, and the second will succeed (internal state
> caching stuff). This should allow a full index to proceed.
>
> It's a temporary fix until we get the next release out.
>
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:48 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Christian, is that something we’ll need to do directly to the
>> database? I don’t suppose you have any info on what needs to be done? Our
>> DBA is on leave at the mo.
>>
>> No probs, not always easy to get to the bottom of these things!
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2017, at 19:15, Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. Okay, yeah, you'd need to remove the commit ID from one of
>> them for now. I'll put a fix together for the next 2.5.x and schedule a
>> release. Thanks for your patience on this!
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:46 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 188, in handle_label
>>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 233, in update_backend
>>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
>>> verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
&
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
label, **options)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 188, in handle_label
self.update_backend(label, using)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 233, in update_backend
do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 96, in do_update
backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
line 196, in update
doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
have a model_attr 'username'.
Thanks
Rob
On Monday, 16 October 2017 22:46:09 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Actually, this should function as a workaround for now. You can do this in
> that same Haystack file. Change the entirety of that previous code to:
>
> hasattr(current_object, attr)
>
> if hasattr(current_object, attr):
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
>
> What will happen is the initial hasattr will trigger the crash that's
> resulting in the failure, but we're discarding the result of the initial
> one. A lucky (in this case) side-effect is that only the first call on a
> given review request will fail, and the second will succeed (internal state
> caching stuff). This should allow a full index to proceed.
>
> It's a temporary fix until we get the next release out.
>
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:48 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Christian, is that something we’ll need to do directly to the
>> database? I don’t suppose you have any info on what needs to be done? Our
>> DBA is on leave at the mo.
>>
>> No probs, not always easy to get to the bottom of these things!
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2017, at 19:15, Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. Okay, yeah, you'd need to remove the commit ID from one of
>> them for now. I'll put a fix together for the next 2.5.x and schedule a
>> release. Thanks for your patience on this!
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:46 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 188, in handle_label
>>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 233, in update_backend
>>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
>>> verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 96, in do_update
>>> backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
>>> line 196, in update
>>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212,
>>> in full_prepare
>>> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203,
>>> in prepare
>>> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(o
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Thanks Christian, is that something we’ll need to do directly to the database?
I don’t suppose you have any info on what needs to be done? Our DBA is on leave
at the mo.
No probs, not always easy to get to the bottom of these things!
Thanks
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Oct 2017, at 19:15, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting. Okay, yeah, you'd need to remove the commit ID from one of them
> for now. I'll put a fix together for the next 2.5.x and schedule a release.
> Thanks for your patience on this!
>
> Christian
>
>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:46 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>> <reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> Here you go...
>>
>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>> line 188, in handle_label
>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>> line 233, in update_backend
>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
>> verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>> line 96, in do_update
>> backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py", line
>> 196, in update
>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212, in
>> full_prepare
>> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203, in
>> prepare
>> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 166, in
>> prepare
>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 90, in
>> prepare
>> getattr(current_object, attr)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/models/review_request.py",
>> line 273, in get_commit
>> commit_id=six.text_type(self.changenum))
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py", line
>> 493, in update
>> rows = query.get_compiler(self.db).execute_sql(None)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py",
>> line 980, in execute_sql
>> cursor = super(SQLUpdateCompiler, self).execute_sql(result_type)
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py",
>> line 786, 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 205, in
>> execute
>> self.errorhandler(self, exc, value)
>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line 36,
>> in defaulterrorhandler
>> raise errorclass, errorvalue
>> IntegrityError: (1062, "Duplicate entry '1701871-1' for key
>> 'reviews_reviewrequest_b8c24015'")
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1964, in main
>> command.run()
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> line 1884, in run
>> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>> lin
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
it__.py", line 159, in call_command return klass.execute(*args, **defaults) 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", line 183, in handle return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line 385, in handle label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", line 188, in handle_label self.update_backend(label, using) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", line 233, in update_backend do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", line 96, in do_update backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py", line 196, in update doc = index.full_prepare(obj) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212, in full_prepare self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203, in prepare self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 166, in prepare return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 90, in prepare getattr(current_object, attr) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/models/review_request.py", line 273, in get_commit commit_id=six.text_type(self.changenum)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py", line 493, in update rows = query.get_compiler(self.db).execute_sql(None) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py", line 980, in execute_sql cursor = super(SQLUpdateCompiler, self).execute_sql(result_type) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py", line 786, 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 205, 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.IntegrityError: (1062, "Duplicate entry '1701871-1' for key 'reviews_reviewrequest_b8c24015'") The error looks familiar - we had some issue sin the past with duplicate entries. The index never used to fail for them though... Thanks Rob On Monday, 16 October 2017 10:38:52 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > I think what's happening is that there's an exception being raised the > first time this is accessed that is resulting in hasattr failing. One more > check (I'm about to go to bed so I'll have to follow up in the morning). > > Before the "has_attr = ..." line, add: > > if attr == 'commit': > getattr(current_object, attr) > > I imagine that's going to result in a new crash, which is good. Show me > what that says. > > Christian > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:09 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard < > revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> Certainly seems a bit weird - I appreciate all your efforts so far!. >> See the out put from the latest index below. If this doesn't tell you >> anything useful, perhaps we can try (on our test system) removing the >> review/record that seems to be causing this and re-run the index? >> >> >> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File >> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", >> >> line 188, in hand
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 233, in update_backend
do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total,
verbosity=self.verbosity, commit=self.commit)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 96, in do_update
backend.update(index, current_qs, commit=commit)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
line 196, in update
doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 212, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 164, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 92, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s.%s at %s -- %s:%s)
does not have a model_attr '%s' (%s -- %s)." % (obj.__class__.__name__,
current_object.pk, current_object.__class__.__module__,
current_object.__class__.__name__, inspect.getfile(obj.__class__), id(obj),
id(current_object), attr, hasattr(current_object, attr), has_attr))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model 'ReviewRequest' ('27393' --
reviewboard.reviews.models.review_request.ReviewRequest at
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/models/review_request.pyc
-- 231638480:231638480) does not have a model_attr 'commit' (True -- False).
Thaks
Rob
On Monday, 16 October 2017 06:31:25 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> At this point, "Gremlins" appear to be the best answer from what I'm able
> to see right now. The output in that error is directly contradicting the
> conditional that allows the error to be shown, so something really bizarre
> is happening that absolutely should not be able to happen. It's not normal.
>
> There's one last thing I want to see... I don't think it's going to give
> me any answers directly, but let's see where this goes.
>
> Change the code to:
>
> import inspect
> has_attr = hasattr(current_object, attr)
> print '%r (%s): %s' % (current_object.__class__, id(current_object),
> has_attr)
> if not has_attr:
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s.%s at %s --
> %s:%s) does not have a model_attr '%s' (%s -- %s)." %
> (obj.__class__.__name__, current_object.pk,
> current_object.__class__.__module__,
> current_object.__class__.__name__, inspect.getfile(obj.__class__),
> id(obj), id(current_object), attr, hasattr(current_object, attr), has_attr))
>
> Christian
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:41 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> No probs - where do we go from here?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> On Thursday, 12 October 2017 19:58:13 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, I just wanted to rule out an easy solution.
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:47 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to add, the haystack version shown in the reviewboard shell is
>>>> looking better now though.
>>>>
>>>> >>> import reviewboard
>>>> >>> print reviewboard.VERSION
>>>> (2, 5, 16, 0, u'final', 0, True)
>>>> >>> print reviewboard.__file__
>>>> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
>>>> >>> import haystack
>>>> >>> print haystack.__version__
>>>> (2, 4, 1)
>>>> >>> print haystack.__file__
>>>> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:41:59 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index -
>>>>> unfortunately the same problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>>>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>&g
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
No probs - where do we go from here? Thanks Rob On Thursday, 12 October 2017 19:58:13 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Ok, I just wanted to rule out an easy solution. > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:47 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard < > revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> Just to add, the haystack version shown in the reviewboard shell is >> looking better now though. >> >> >>> import reviewboard >> >>> print reviewboard.VERSION >> (2, 5, 16, 0, u'final', 0, True) >> >>> print reviewboard.__file__ >> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/__init__.pyc >> >>> import haystack >> >>> print haystack.__version__ >> (2, 4, 1) >> >>> print haystack.__file__ >> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc >> >> >> Thanks >> Rob >> >> On Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:41:59 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephen, >>> >>> I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index - >>> unfortunately the same problem. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Rob >>> >>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard < >>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Christian, >>>>> >>>>> Ok, lets hope this can tell you something useful... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Rob, I just packaged up Haystack 2.4.1 (and did rudimentary testing to >>>> see that ReviewBoard still works). Would you mind installing the RPM at >>>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-haystack-2.4.1-1.el7 >>>> , >>>> restarting httpd and seeing if that fixes things? >>>> >>>> I'd like to see if this issue might just already be fixed in the newer >>>> 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 >> "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: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Just to add, the haystack version shown in the reviewboard shell is looking better now though. >>> import reviewboard >>> print reviewboard.VERSION (2, 5, 16, 0, u'final', 0, True) >>> print reviewboard.__file__ /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/__init__.pyc >>> import haystack >>> print haystack.__version__ (2, 4, 1) >>> print haystack.__file__ /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc Thanks Rob On Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:41:59 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index - > unfortunately the same problem. > > Thanks > Rob > > On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard < >> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Christian, >>> >>> Ok, lets hope this can tell you something useful... >>> >>> >> >> Rob, I just packaged up Haystack 2.4.1 (and did rudimentary testing to >> see that ReviewBoard still works). Would you mind installing the RPM at >> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-haystack-2.4.1-1.el7 , >> restarting httpd and seeing if that fixes things? >> >> I'd like to see if this issue might just already be fixed in the newer >> 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 "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: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Stephen, I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index - unfortunately the same problem. Thanks Rob On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard < > revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> Hi Christian, >> >> Ok, lets hope this can tell you something useful... >> >> > > Rob, I just packaged up Haystack 2.4.1 (and did rudimentary testing to see > that ReviewBoard still works). Would you mind installing the RPM at > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-haystack-2.4.1-1.el7 , > restarting httpd and seeing if that fixes things? > > I'd like to see if this issue might just already be fixed in the newer > 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 "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: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
epare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 161, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 86, in
prepare
print '%r (%s): %s' % (current_object, id(current_object),
hasattr(current_object, attr))
UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xe2 in position 68:
ordinal not in range(128)
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 19:48:55 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hmm, this is beyond bizarre. Note these lines:
>
> if not hasattr(current_object, attr):
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s) does not have a
> model_attr '%s' (%s)." % (repr(obj), repr(current_object),
> current_object.__class__.__name__, attr, hasattr(current_object, attr)))
>
> The relevant parts are the if statement and the final argument to
> SearchFieldError. Note how in the output, that final attribute resolves to
> True, but the if statement resolves to False. It's the same exact check for
> an attribute that is either there or not. It makes no sense for them to be
> different. The attribute can't be gone in one statement and there in
> another. So something truly bizarre appears to be happening, and I have no
> idea what could possibly cause that. If it wasn't so consistent, I'd blame
> the RAM on your system.
>
> Just to gather more information, change the above code to;
>
> print '%r (%s): %s' % (current_object, id(current_object),
> hasattr(current_object, attr))
> if not hasattr(current_object, attr):
> import inspect
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s.%s at %s --
> %s:%s) does not have a model_attr '%s' (%s)." % (repr(obj),
> repr(current_object), current_object.__class__.__module__,
> current_object.__class__.__name__, inspect.getfile(obj.__class__), id(obj),
> id(current_object), attr, hasattr(current_object, attr)))
>
>
> We may be approaching a point in this where I won't be able to diagnose
> much else over e-mail, and am basically out of ideas. We'd need to either
> work directly on your system, set up a live session to diagnose it, or
> provide a series of custom builds and gather confidential information, and
> these require support contracts on our end. We'll see first if the above
> tells us anything interesting.
>
> Christian
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:35 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Here you go...
>>
>> # encoding: utf-8
>> from __future__ import unicode_literals
>>
>> import re
>>
>> from django.template import Context, loader
>> from django.utils import datetime_safe, six
>>
>> from haystack.exceptions import SearchFieldError
>> from haystack.utils import get_model_ct_tuple
>>
>>
>> class NOT_PROVIDED:
>> pass
>>
>>
>> DATETIME_REGEX =
>> re.compile('^(?P\d{4})-(?P\d{2})-(?P\d{2})(T|\s+)(?P\d{2}):(?P\d{2}):(?P\d{2}).*?$')
>>
>>
>> # All the SearchFields variants.
>>
>> class SearchField(object):
>> """The base implementation of a search field."""
>> field_type = None
>>
>> def __init__(self, model_attr=None, use_template=False,
>> template_name=None,
>> document=False, indexed=True, stored=True, faceted=False,
>> default=NOT_PROVIDED, null=False, index_fieldname=None,
>> facet_class=None, boost=1.0, weight=None):
>> # Track what the index thinks this field is called.
>> self.instance_name = None
>> self.model_attr = model_attr
>> self.use_template = use_template
>> self.template_name = template_name
>> self.document = document
>> self.indexed = indexed
>> self.stored = stored
>> self.faceted = faceted
>> self._default = default
>> self.null = null
>> self.index_fieldname = index_fieldname
>> self.boost = weight or boost
>> self.is_multivalued = False
>>
>> # We supply the facet_class for making it easy to create a faceted
>> # field based off of this field.
>> self.facet_class = facet_class
>>
>> if self.facet_class is None:
>> self.facet_class = FacetCharField
>>
>> self.set_instance_name(None)
>>
>> def set_instance_name(self, instance_name):
>> self.instance_name =
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
et('facet_class') is None:
kwargs['facet_class'] = FacetDateTimeField
super(DateTimeField, self).__init__(**kwargs)
def convert(self, value):
if value is None:
return None
if isinstance(value, six.string_types):
match = DATETIME_REGEX.search(value)
if match:
data = match.groupdict()
return datetime_safe.datetime(int(data['year']),
int(data['month']), int(data['day']), int(data['hour']),
int(data['minute']), int(data['second']))
else:
raise SearchFieldError("Datetime provided to '%s' field
doesn't appear to be a valid datetime string: '%s'" % (self.instance_name,
value))
return value
class MultiValueField(SearchField):
field_type = 'string'
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
if kwargs.get('facet_class') is None:
kwargs['facet_class'] = FacetMultiValueField
if kwargs.get('use_template') is True:
raise SearchFieldError("'%s' fields can not use templates to
prepare their data." % self.__class__.__name__)
super(MultiValueField, self).__init__(**kwargs)
self.is_multivalued = True
def prepare(self, obj):
return self.convert(super(MultiValueField, self).prepare(obj))
def convert(self, value):
if value is None:
return None
return list(value)
class FacetField(SearchField):
"""
``FacetField`` is slightly different than the other fields because it
can
work in conjunction with other fields as its data source.
Accepts an optional ``facet_for`` kwarg, which should be the field name
(not ``index_fieldname``) of the field it should pull data from.
"""
instance_name = None
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
handled_kwargs = self.handle_facet_parameters(kwargs)
super(FacetField, self).__init__(**handled_kwargs)
def handle_facet_parameters(self, kwargs):
if kwargs.get('faceted', False):
raise SearchFieldError("FacetField (%s) does not accept the
'faceted' argument." % self.instance_name)
if not kwargs.get('null', True):
raise SearchFieldError("FacetField (%s) does not accept False
for the 'null' argument." % self.instance_name)
if not kwargs.get('indexed', True):
raise SearchFieldError("FacetField (%s) does not accept False
for the 'indexed' argument." % self.instance_name)
if kwargs.get('facet_class'):
raise SearchFieldError("FacetField (%s) does not accept the
'facet_class' argument." % self.instance_name)
self.facet_for = None
self.facet_class = None
# Make sure the field is nullable.
kwargs['null'] = True
if 'facet_for' in kwargs:
self.facet_for = kwargs['facet_for']
del(kwargs['facet_for'])
return kwargs
def get_facet_for_name(self):
return self.facet_for or self.instance_name
class FacetCharField(FacetField, CharField):
pass
class FacetIntegerField(FacetField, IntegerField):
pass
class FacetFloatField(FacetField, FloatField):
pass
class FacetDecimalField(FacetField, DecimalField):
pass
class FacetBooleanField(FacetField, BooleanField):
pass
class FacetDateField(FacetField, DateField):
pass
class FacetDateTimeField(FacetField, DateTimeField):
pass
class FacetMultiValueField(FacetField, MultiValueField):
pass
On Monday, 9 October 2017 17:22:42 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Can you send me the fields.py file as you now have it? That output
> contradicts the logic that should be in the code.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 03:29 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> See the new output below...
>>
>> Removing all documents from your index because you said so.
>> All documents removed.
>> Indexing 558 users
>> Indexing 27878 review requests
>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>
>> line 189, in handle_label
>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>
>> line 234, in update_backend
>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>
>> line 89, in do_update
>> backend.update(index, current_qs)
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 160, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 88, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s) does not have a
model_attr '%s' (%s)." % (repr(obj), repr(current_object),
current_object.__class__.__name__, attr, hasattr(current_object, attr)))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' ('' -- ReviewRequest)
does not have a model_attr 'commit' (True).
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/bas
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Stephen, I did think that might be the case, but I have only installed using yum. I have a test system setup in the same way (and showing the same behaviour) and checked to see if any packages had been installed using pip, but they have not... I’m not not particularly savvy with pip/easy_install though so if you can suggest any tricks to show for sure, that would be great. Thanks Rob Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Oct 2017, at 19:10, Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com> wrote: > > Rob, did you install ReviewBoard using pip or using the EPEL 7 RPM? > > From above, it looks like you may have two copies of Haystack on your system, > one installed via RPM and the other possibly installed by pip/easy_install. > You will need to clear out the 2.1.1dev version. >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:32 PM Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> It was a couple e-mails ago, but can you actually just attach >> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py? I'll see if that logic >> differs from what is in 2.3.1. >> >> Christian >> >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard >>> <reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> Sorry, which one line? >>> >>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 00:59:12 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote: >>>> Hi Rob, >>>> >>>> That's the version listed in the source code for the version of Haystack >>>> being run. Not sure if that indicates a packaging problem or what, but >>>> it's very strange. >>>> >>>> Could you show me that one line in fields.py? >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 13:22 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard >>>>> <revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Christian, >>>>> >>>>> We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed. >>>>> >>>>> python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7 >>>>> >>>>> Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in the >>>>> correct place? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then, >>>>>> indexing doesn't seem to complete. >>>>>> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error... >>>>>> >>>>>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default >>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last): >>>>>> File >>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", >>>>>> line 189, in handle_label >>>>>> self.update_backend(label, using) >>>>>> File >>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", >>>>>> line 234, in update_backend >>>>>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity) >>>>>> File >>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py", >>>>>> line 89, in do_update >>>>>> backend.update(index, current_qs) >>>>>> File >>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py", >>>>>> line 191, in update >>>>>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj) >>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207, >>>>>> in full_prepare >>>>>> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj) >>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198, >>>>>> in prepare >>>>>> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj) >>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, >>>>>> in prepare >>>>>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj)) >>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, >>>>>> in prepare >>>>>> raise SearchFieldError(&quo
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Christian, I’ll send the file to you asap.
Thanks
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
> On 6 Oct 2017, at 18:31, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> It was a couple e-mails ago, but can you actually just attach
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py? I'll see if that logic
> differs from what is in 2.3.1.
>
> Christian
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>> <reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, which one line?
>>
>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 00:59:12 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> That's the version listed in the source code for the version of Haystack
>>> being run. Not sure if that indicates a packaging problem or what, but it's
>>> very strange.
>>>
>>> Could you show me that one line in fields.py?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 13:22 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>>>> <revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>
>>>> We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed.
>>>>
>>>> python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7
>>>>
>>>> Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in the
>>>> correct place?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
>>>>> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
>>>>> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>> line 189, in handle_label
>>>>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>> line 234, in update_backend
>>>>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>>> line 89, in do_update
>>>>> backend.update(index, current_qs)
>>>>> File
>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
>>>>> line 191, in update
>>>>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
>>>>> in full_prepare
>>>>> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
>>>>> in prepare
>>>>> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159,
>>>>> in prepare
>>>>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
>>>>> prepare
>>>>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
>>>>> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
>>>>> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
>>>>> have a model_attr 'commit'.
>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>>>>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts',
>>>>> 'rb-site')()
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>> line 1964, in main
>>>>> command.run()
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>> line 1884, in run
>>>>> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
>>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>> line 712, in run_manage_command
>>>>> execute_from
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Sorry, which one line?
On Friday, 6 October 2017 00:59:12 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> That's the version listed in the source code for the version of Haystack
> being run. Not sure if that indicates a packaging problem or what, but it's
> very strange.
>
> Could you show me that one line in fields.py?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 13:22 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed.
>>
>> python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7
>>
>> Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in the
>> correct place?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
>>> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
>>> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>>>
>>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 189, in handle_label
>>> self.update_backend(label, using)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 234, in update_backend
>>> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>>>
>>> line 89, in do_update
>>> backend.update(index, current_qs)
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
>>> line 191, in update
>>> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
>>> in full_prepare
>>> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
>>> in prepare
>>> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159,
>>> in prepare
>>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87,
>>> in prepare
>>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
>>> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
>>> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
>>> have a model_attr 'commit'.
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts',
>>> 'rb-site')()
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>> line 1964, in main
>>> command.run()
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>> line 1884, in run
>>> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>>>
>>> line 21, in handle
>>> call_command('update_index')
>>> File
>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Christian,
We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed.
python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7
Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in the
correct place?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
> line 385, in handle
> label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_q
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Perhaps we're able to add some kind of debugging to the indexing to provide
more info?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
> line 385, in handle
> label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py"
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Here you go...
>>> import reviewboard
>>> print reviewboard.VERSION
(2, 5, 16, 0, u'final', 0, True)
>>> print reviewboard.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
>>> import haystack
>>> print haystack.__version__
(2, 1, 1, u'dev')
>>> print haystack.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
> line 385, in handle
> label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs,
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Chris,
Yep, its True.
# rb-site manage /var/www/reviews shell
Python 2.7.5 (default, Aug 4 2017, 00:39:18)
[GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-16)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
(InteractiveConsole)
>>> from reviewboard.reviews.models import ReviewRequest
>>> r = ReviewRequest.objects.get(pk=1)
>>> print hasattr(r, 'commit')
True
>>>
Cheers
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
> line 385, in handle
> label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Christian,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Is this what you're after?
python-django-haystack.noarch
2.3.1-1.el7
Thanksl
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
> line 385, in handle
> label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/u
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
As this happens during the index, it is preventing us from having full
search results - any help would be much appreciated as this is causing
quite a few issues for our development team.
Please let me know if you need any more info.
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
>
> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_update
> backend.update(index, current_qs)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
> line 191, in update
> doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207,
> in full_prepare
> self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198,
> in prepare
> self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
> prepare
> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
> prepare
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
> '%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
> SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
> have a model_attr 'commit'.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1964, in main
> command.run()
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 1884, in run
> site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
> line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
>
> line 21, in handle
> call_command('update_index')
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
> 159, in call_command
> return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
> 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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 184, in handle
> return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
> line 385, in handle
> label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 189, in handle_label
> self.update_backend(label, using)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 234, in update_backend
> do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
>
> line 89, in do_
Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi,
I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
indexing doesn't seem to complete.
The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 189, in handle_label
self.update_backend(label, using)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 234, in update_backend
do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 89, in do_update
backend.update(index, current_qs)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
line 191, in update
doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
SearchFieldError: The model '' does not
have a model_attr 'commit'.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.16', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
line 1964, in main
command.run()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
line 1884, in run
site.run_manage_command(args[0], args[1:])
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
line 712, 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/reviewboard/reviews/management/commands/index.py",
line 21, in handle
call_command('update_index')
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line
159, in call_command
return klass.execute(*args, **defaults)
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/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 184, in handle
return super(Command, self).handle(*items, **options)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
line 385, in handle
label_output = self.handle_label(label, **options)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 189, in handle_label
self.update_backend(label, using)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 234, in update_backend
do_update(backend, index, qs, start, end, total, self.verbosity)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/management/commands/update_index.py",
line 89, in do_update
backend.update(index, current_qs)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/backends/whoosh_backend.py",
line 191, in update
doc = index.full_prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 207, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 198, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 159, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'.
Re: Posting a new Review in 2.5.10
Hi Christian, You'll have to excuse me, i do't use ReviewBoard myself so just relaying messages from our dev team. When you do this then you are unable to add a diff at a later stage. It creates the form as a non-repository form. The workflow we sometimes use is: 1. Create form and fill in details using web browser. 2. From the server generate a diff and update the RB form 3. Reviewer add any comments they have to an email and then additionally attaches to the RB form. We can create a non-repository form as you have seen, but when we then try and use a P4 changelist Id to generate a diff and attach to the form, it results in an error. - Thanks Rob On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:25:05 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > Hi, > > Since upgrading to RB 2.5.10 our developers have noticed they can not post > a review without uploading a diff. > Previously, using the web interface you were able to create a RB form > without a diff – Can we configure RB to allow this again? > > Thanks > Rob > > -- 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: Integrity Error: 1062 Duplicate Entry
Hi Christian, This is from our DBA... ok, in that case we either have no problematic dupes or we are not sure how to find them. All dupes mentioned before have same changenum but different repository_id.. All items returned by executing below code have different repository_id: “select a.id, a.status, a.public, a.changenum, a.repository_id, b.totalCount AS no_of_duplicate from reviews_reviewrequest a inner join ( SELECT changenum, COUNT(*) totalCount FROM reviews_reviewrequest GROUP BY changenum) b ON a.changenum = b.changenum WHERE b.totalCount >= 2 order by a.changenum desc” There will be items with exactly same ‘status’ and/or ‘public’ values, there will be some dupes where those are different but in all cases repository_id differs between the dupes on changenum column.. Are you able to point us in right direction in order to identify the problematic dupes (or other issue that might be causing the problem) ? --- Thanks Rob On Friday, 26 May 2017 09:24:00 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > Hi, > > We have recently upgraded our ReviewBoard from version 1.7.22 to 2.5.10 - > as well as also upgrading from RHEL 6.x to CentOS 7.3.1611. > Since then we have a review that cannot be interacted with...can't post a > new review or comment, adjust existing comments etc - or even delete the > review. > We get a "HTTP 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR" from the browser and the > following error in the ReviewBoard logs: > > > > None - admin - /api/review-requests/27393/ - Exception thrown for user admin > at > http://reviews/api/review-requests/27393/?api_format=json=html=raw > > (1062, "Duplicate entry '1701871-1' for key 'reviews_reviewrequest_b8c24015'") > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py", line > 112, in get_response > response = wrapped_callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/cache.py", > line 52, in _wrapped_view_func > response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/vary.py", > line 19, in inner_func > response = func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 196, in __call__ > request, method, view, api_format=api_format, *args, **kwargs) > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/mixins/api_tokens.py", > line 65, in call_method_view > return view(request, *args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/util/decorators.py", line > 75, in _call > f = augmented_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line > 122, in _call > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/decorators.py", > line 36, in _check > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line > 122, in _call > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/decorators.py", > line 139, in _check > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/util/decorators.py", line > 75, in _call > f = augmented_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line > 122, in _call > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 488, in get > etag = self.get_etag(request, obj, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 1134, in get_etag > encode_etag=False, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 1162, in generate_etag > etag = repr(self.serialize_object(obj, request=request, **kwargs)) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/mixins.py", line > 60, in serialize_object > obj, *args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 774, in serialize_object > value = serialize_func(obj, request=request) > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/resources/review_request.py", > line 561, in serialize_commit_id_field > return obj.commit > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-package
Re: Attachment uploads
Oh and yes, anyone can add comments so thats fine... On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:10:01 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > Hi, > > > Since we upgraded to RB 2.5.10 there has been a change in the way our > developers can upload attachments. > > > Attachments added by anyone other than the submitter do not seem to > upload. > > This is because it puts the RB form into a draft state and only the > submitter has visibility and authority to publish draft forms. Is it > possible to relax this validation? > > I believe previously “other” users were able to both comment and > additionally upload files. > > > Thanks > > Rob > -- 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: Attachment uploads
Hi Christian, Thanks for the quick reply! So the menu options for other users to upload files shouldn't be available? Is this a bug? We upgraded from 1.7.22 - perhaps also a bug in that version that allowed users to do it? Thanks Rob On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:15:16 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > It's never been intended for anyone but the owner of the review request to > be able to upload attachments to a review request. Review requests are not > collaborative in this way. The only users who can modify another user's > review request are administrators or those with special permissions set. > > Anyone should be able to comment on any file attachment after it's been > published. Is that not working? > > What version did you upgrade from? > > Christian > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:10 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard < > revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> Since we upgraded to RB 2.5.10 there has been a change in the way our >> developers can upload attachments. >> >> >> Attachments added by anyone other than the submitter do not seem to >> upload. >> >> This is because it puts the RB form into a draft state and only the >> submitter has visibility and authority to publish draft forms. Is it >> possible to relax this validation? >> >> I believe previously “other” users were able to both comment and >> additionally upload files. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Rob >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Christian Hammond > President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/> > Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/> > -- 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.
Posting a new Review in 2.5.10
Hi, Since upgrading to RB 2.5.10 our developers have noticed they can not post a review without uploading a diff. Previously, using the web interface you were able to create a RB form without a diff – Can we configure RB to allow this again? Thanks Rob -- 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.
Attachment uploads
Hi, Since we upgraded to RB 2.5.10 there has been a change in the way our developers can upload attachments. Attachments added by anyone other than the submitter do not seem to upload. This is because it puts the RB form into a draft state and only the submitter has visibility and authority to publish draft forms. Is it possible to relax this validation? I believe previously “other” users were able to both comment and additionally upload files. Thanks Rob -- 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: Integrity Error: 1062 Duplicate Entry
Hi Christian, Thanks for the quick response. I'm not particularly comfortable with SQL but i'll ask a colleague if he can help out - i'll let you know. Thanks Rob On Friday, 26 May 2017 09:24:00 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > Hi, > > We have recently upgraded our ReviewBoard from version 1.7.22 to 2.5.10 - > as well as also upgrading from RHEL 6.x to CentOS 7.3.1611. > Since then we have a review that cannot be interacted with...can't post a > new review or comment, adjust existing comments etc - or even delete the > review. > We get a "HTTP 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR" from the browser and the > following error in the ReviewBoard logs: > > > > None - admin - /api/review-requests/27393/ - Exception thrown for user admin > at > http://reviews/api/review-requests/27393/?api_format=json=html=raw > > (1062, "Duplicate entry '1701871-1' for key 'reviews_reviewrequest_b8c24015'") > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py", line > 112, in get_response > response = wrapped_callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/cache.py", > line 52, in _wrapped_view_func > response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/vary.py", > line 19, in inner_func > response = func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 196, in __call__ > request, method, view, api_format=api_format, *args, **kwargs) > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/mixins/api_tokens.py", > line 65, in call_method_view > return view(request, *args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/util/decorators.py", line > 75, in _call > f = augmented_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line > 122, in _call > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/decorators.py", > line 36, in _check > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line > 122, in _call > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/decorators.py", > line 139, in _check > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/util/decorators.py", line > 75, in _call > f = augmented_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line > 122, in _call > return view_func(*args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 488, in get > etag = self.get_etag(request, obj, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 1134, in get_etag > encode_etag=False, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 1162, in generate_etag > etag = repr(self.serialize_object(obj, request=request, **kwargs)) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/mixins.py", line > 60, in serialize_object > obj, *args, **kwargs) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", > line 774, in serialize_object > value = serialize_func(obj, request=request) > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/resources/review_request.py", > line 561, in serialize_commit_id_field > return obj.commit > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/reviews/models/review_request.py", > line 273, in get_commit > commit_id=six.text_type(self.changenum)) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py", line > 493, in update > rows = query.get_compiler(self.db).execute_sql(None) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py", > line 980, in execute_sql > cursor = super(SQLUpdateCompiler, self).execute_sql(result_type) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py", > line 786, 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)
Integrity Error: 1062 Duplicate Entry
ler raise errorclass, errorvalue IntegrityError: (1062, "Duplicate entry '1701871-1' for key 'reviews_reviewrequest_b8c24015'") I've seen another similar post on this forum but no resolution. (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/reviewboard/7T9oAFHuLSU) Is there anything we can do here? Thanks Rob -- 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: rb-site upgrade fails
Hi,
>>> import reviewboard.scmtools
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ImportError: No module named scmtools
>>> print reviewboard.scmtools
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'scmtools'
>>> import reviewboard.scmtools.core
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ImportError: No module named scmtools.core
>>> print reviewboard.scmtools.core
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'scmtools'
>>> from reviewboard.scmtools.core import PRE_CREATION, UNKNOWN,
FileNotFoundError
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ImportError: No module named scmtools.core
I'm going to start this again...will let you know how it goes.
Thanks
Rob
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 16:06:04 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
> upgrade' fails...
>
> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>
> line 1922, in main
> command.run()
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>
> line 1704, in run
> diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed()
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>
> line 477, in get_diff_dedup_needed
> from reviewboard.diffviewer.models import FileDiff
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
>
> line 14, in
> from reviewboard.diffviewer.managers import (RawFileDiffDataManager,
> File
> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
>
> line 19, in
> from reviewboard.scmtools.core import PRE_CREATION, UNKNOWN,
> FileNotFoundError
> ImportError: No module named scmtools.core
>
> This is running on RHEL 6.7.
> Doe anyone have any ideas how to fix this?
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>
--
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: rb-site upgrade fails
Did you have any other ideas about this one?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 10:03:40 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Ahaa, that looks better...
>
> >>> print reviewboard.__file__
>
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 09:44:08 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, typo. Should have been reviewboard.__file__
>>
>> (That's two underscores on each side.)
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Hammond
>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Rob Backhurst <backh...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> Here you go...
>>>
>>> # python
>>> Python 2.6.6 (r266:84292, May 22 2015, 08:34:51)
>>> [GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-15)] on linux2
>>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> >>> import reviewboard
>>> >>> print reviewboard.__file_
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> File "", line 1, in
>>> AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute '__file_'
>>> >>>
>>>
>>> Obviously something not quite right with the installation..?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 29 May 2016 05:53:10 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Can you run:
>>>>
>>>> $ python
>>>> >>> import reviewboard
>>>> >>> print reviewboard.__file_
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Hammond
>>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Rob Backhurst <backh...@googlemail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our
>>>>> live reviewboard server.
>>>>> There is no reviewboard dir when running the rb-site upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How was Review Board installed? It looks like there's some weirdness
>>>>>> going on with the module.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the
>>>>>> directory you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christian Hammond
>>>>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>>>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>>>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but
>>>>>>> 'rb-site upgrade' fails...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
>>>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>>>>>>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_scripts',
>>>>>>> 'rb-site')()
>>>>>>> File
>>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> line 1922, in main
>>>>>>> command.run()
>>>>>>> File
>>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: rb-site upgrade fails
Ahaa, that looks better...
>>> print reviewboard.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 09:44:08 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Sorry, typo. Should have been reviewboard.__file__
>
> (That's two underscores on each side.)
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Rob Backhurst <backh...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> Here you go...
>>
>> # python
>> Python 2.6.6 (r266:84292, May 22 2015, 08:34:51)
>> [GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-15)] on linux2
>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>> >>> import reviewboard
>> >>> print reviewboard.__file_
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "", line 1, in
>> AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute '__file_'
>> >>>
>>
>> Obviously something not quite right with the installation..?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 29 May 2016 05:53:10 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Can you run:
>>>
>>> $ python
>>> >>> import reviewboard
>>> >>> print reviewboard.__file_
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Hammond
>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Rob Backhurst <backh...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>>>
>>>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our live
>>>> reviewboard server.
>>>> There is no reviewboard dir when running the rb-site upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> How was Review Board installed? It looks like there's some weirdness
>>>>> going on with the module.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the
>>>>> directory you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Hammond
>>>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
>>>>>> upgrade' fails...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
>>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>>>>>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_scripts',
>>>>>> 'rb-site')()
>>>>>> File
>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> line 1922, in main
>>>>>> command.run()
>>>>>> File
>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> line 1704, in run
>>>>>> diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed()
>>>>>> File
>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> line 477, in get_diff_dedup_needed
>>>>>> from reviewboard.diffviewer.models import FileDiff
>>>>>> File
>>>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
Re: rb-site upgrade fails
Hi Christian,
Here you go...
# python
Python 2.6.6 (r266:84292, May 22 2015, 08:34:51)
[GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-15)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import reviewboard
>>> print reviewboard.__file_
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute '__file_'
>>>
Obviously something not quite right with the installation..?
Thanks
Rob
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 05:53:10 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Can you run:
>
> $ python
> >>> import reviewboard
> >>> print reviewboard.__file_
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Rob Backhurst <backh...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>
>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our live
>> reviewboard server.
>> There is no reviewboard dir when running the rb-site upgrade.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> On Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> How was Review Board installed? It looks like there's some weirdness
>>> going on with the module.
>>>
>>> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the directory
>>> you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Hammond
>>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
>>>> upgrade' fails...
>>>>
>>>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>>>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_scripts',
>>>> 'rb-site')()
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 1922, in main
>>>> command.run()
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 1704, in run
>>>> diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed()
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 477, in get_diff_dedup_needed
>>>> from reviewboard.diffviewer.models import FileDiff
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 14, in
>>>> from reviewboard.diffviewer.managers import (RawFileDiffDataManager,
>>>> File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
>>>>
>>>> line 19, in
>>>> from reviewboard.scmtools.core import PRE_CREATION, UNKNOWN,
>>>> FileNotFoundError
>>>> ImportError: No module named scmtools.core
>>>>
>>>> This is running on RHEL 6.7.
>>>> Doe anyone have any ideas how to fix this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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: rb-site upgrade fails
Hi Christian,
Sorry for the slow reply.
It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our live
reviewboard server.
There is no reviewboard dir when running the rb-site upgrade.
Thanks
Rob
On Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> How was Review Board installed? It looks like there's some weirdness going
> on with the module.
>
> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the directory
> you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
>> upgrade' fails...
>>
>> # rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
>> load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>
>> line 1922, in main
>> command.run()
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>
>> line 1704, in run
>> diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed()
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py",
>>
>> line 477, in get_diff_dedup_needed
>> from reviewboard.diffviewer.models import FileDiff
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
>>
>> line 14, in
>> from reviewboard.diffviewer.managers import (RawFileDiffDataManager,
>> File
>> "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
>>
>> line 19, in
>> from reviewboard.scmtools.core import PRE_CREATION, UNKNOWN,
>> FileNotFoundError
>> ImportError: No module named scmtools.core
>>
>> This is running on RHEL 6.7.
>> Doe anyone have any ideas how to fix this?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> --
>> 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: RBtools 0.7.4 error 105 path not found.
It's reviewboard 2.0.1, we are using Git version 1.9.5. I am not the review board administrator, but I have access to the linux box. If you can point me to where the logs are that'd be really helpful. Thanks! On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 5:02:33 PM UTC-5, David Trowbridge wrote: > > What version of Review Board? What version control system (and version > thereof)? Is there anything in the server log? > > -David > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:43 AM Rob Dejournett <rdejo...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Sorry if this is a double post. Getting error with some files posting >> using RBTools. Java files seem to work fine. I use something called Mirth >> Connect which generates XML files as code. Basically when RBT tries to >> upload the diff it fails with the 105 error. Attached is the diff. >> >> -- >> 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. >> > -- > -David -- 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: RBtools 0.7.4 error 105 path not found.
Also the server log is here:
2015-12-08 14:49:54,420 - ERROR - None - rdejournett -
/api/review-requests/5110/diffs/ - Error uploading new diff: Not Found
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/webapi/resources/diff.py",
line 292, in create
request.FILES.get('parent_diff_path'))
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/reviews/forms.py",
line 116, in create
history)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/forms.py",
line 69, in create
request=self.request)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
line 156, in create_from_upload
save=save)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
line 210, in create_from_data
limit_to=diff_filenames):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
line 300, in _process_files
request=request))):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py",
line 238, in get_file_exists
base_commit_id, request)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/scmtools/models.py",
line 415, in _get_file_exists_uncached
base_commit_id=base_commit_id)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/bitbucket.py",
line 177, in get_file_exists
self._api_get_src(repository, path, revision, base_commit_id)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/bitbucket.py",
line 214, in _api_get_src
return self._api_get(url, raw_content=True)
File
"/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/hostingsvcs/bitbucket.py",
line 265, in _api_get
raise Exception(e.read())
Exception: Not Found
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 9:03:25 AM UTC-5, Rob Dejournett wrote:
>
> It's reviewboard 2.0.1, we are using Git version 1.9.5. I am not the
> review board administrator, but I have access to the linux box. If you can
> point me to where the logs are that'd be really helpful.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 5:02:33 PM UTC-5, David Trowbridge wrote:
>>
>> What version of Review Board? What version control system (and version
>> thereof)? Is there anything in the server log?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:43 AM Rob Dejournett <rdejo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry if this is a double post. Getting error with some files posting
>>> using RBTools. Java files seem to work fine. I use something called Mirth
>>> Connect which generates XML files as code. Basically when RBT tries to
>>> upload the diff it fails with the 105 error. Attached is the diff.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>> --
>> -David
>
>
--
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.
RBTools 0.7.4 error 105 POSTing a diff
I am doing some development which is tracked by XML files. It looks like these XML files are breaking RBTools (java files post file). I get a 105 error stating path is not found. Not really sure what this means. But I strongly suspect its due to parsing of the diff. Attached is said diff (which i hacked the post.py to display). -- 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. mydiff Description: Binary data
RBtools 0.7.4 error 105 path not found.
Sorry if this is a double post. Getting error with some files posting
using RBTools. Java files seem to work fine. I use something called Mirth
Connect which generates XML files as code. Basically when RBT tries to
upload the diff it fails with the 105 error. Attached is the diff.
--
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.
>>> RBTools 0.7.4
>>> Python 2.7.5 (default, Mar 9 2014, 22:15:05)
[GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 5.0 (clang-500.0.68)]
>>> Running on Darwin-13.4.0-x86_64-i386-64bit
>>> Home = /Users/rdejournett
>>> Current directory = /Users/rdejournett/mfss-rcm-mirth
>>> Running: git version
>>> Checking for a Git repository...
>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir
>>> Running: git config core.bare
>>> Running: git rev-parse --show-toplevel
>>> Running: git symbolic-ref -q HEAD
>>> Running: git config --get branch.RCMSTATE-763.merge
>>> Running: git config --get branch.RCMSTATE-763.remote
>>> Running: git config --get remote.origin.url
>>> repository info: Path: g...@bitbucket.org:mfgit/mfss-rcm-mirth.git, Base path: , Supports changesets: False
>>> Making HTTP GET request to https://rb.dev.medfusion.net/api/
>>> Running: git rev-parse b269f02
>>> Running: git rev-parse b269f02b7feddcba1b53c9e9f6093e7b50374208^
>>> Running: git merge-base 84d258f5e9aa911bf55a048ab6b968bca91098cb origin/development
>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir
>>> Running: git -c core.quotepath=false -c diff.noprefix=false diff --no-color --full-index --ignore-submodules -M --no-ext-diff 84d258f5e9aa911bf55a048ab6b968bca91098cb..b269f02b7feddcba1b53c9e9f6093e7b50374208
>>> Making HTTP GET request to https://rb.dev.medfusion.net/api/review-requests/5098/?only-links=diffs%2Cdraft=absolute_url%2Cbugs_closed%2Cid%2Cstatus
>>> Making HTTP GET request to https://rb.dev.medfusion.net/api/review-requests/5098/diffs/?only-fields=
>>> Making HTTP POST request to https://rb.dev.medfusion.net/api/review-requests/5098/diffs/
>>> Got API Error 105 (HTTP code 400): One or more fields had errors
>>> Error data: {u'fields': {u'path': [u'Not Found']}, u'stat': u'fail', u'err': {u'msg': u'One or more fields had errors', u'code': 105}}
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/bin/rbt", line 8, in
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.4', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.4-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/main.py", line 133, in main
command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.4-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/__init__.py", line 612, in run_from_argv
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.4-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py", line 799, in main
base_dir=base_dir)
File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.4-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py", line 481, in post_request
raise CommandError(u'\n'.join(error_msg))
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error uploading diff
diff --git a/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/pom.xml b/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/pom.xml
index a90ed7ac3b983670edb3c0068b071df6a57cd48f..88f626bb3bba3c95d1882dd75d5799579251e16b 100644
--- a/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/pom.xml
+++ b/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/pom.xml
@@ -53,7 +53,41 @@
maven-jar-plugin
2.6
- ${parent.dir}
+ ../deploy/custom-lib/Estatements
+
+
+
+
+org.apache.maven.plugins
+maven-clean-plugin
+3.0.0
+
+
+
+
+ ../deploy/custom-lib/Estatements
+
+*.jar
+
+ true
+
+
+ deploy
+
+*
+
+ true
+
+
+
diff --git a/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/src/main/java/com/medfusion/estatement/ge/ProcessGE.java b/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/src/main/java/com/medfusion/estatement/ge/ProcessGE.java
index 3c6091fa9105c3b6f879008f0314e969fd8ab2fd..f19b9292f857f2187b5f4776d16f8e2ac2e76a86 100644
--- a/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/src/main/java/com/medfusion/estatement/ge/ProcessGE.java
+++ b/mfss-rcm-mirth-core/src/main/java/com/medfusion/estatement/ge/ProcessGE.java
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ package com.medfusion.estatement.ge;
import java.io.StringReader;
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.util.ArrayList;
+import java.util.Calendar;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.UUID;
@@ -40,7 +41,7 @@ public class ProcessGE {
//TODO Pradeep to research
}
- public String ESTtoXML(String est, String filename, boolean useInsAging) {
+ public String ESTtoXML(String est, String filename, boolean useInsAging, float
Missing authentication options
Hi, I wonder if anyone else has had this experience or can offer any assistance ? Over the weekend, the CentOS server I was running ReviewBoard (v1.7.16) on under lighttpd was powered off and rebooted. It was previously configured to use ActiveDirectory authentication which worked perfectly. Since the reboot, authentication has been failing, and when I get back into the Admin Authentication menu from a browser that still has an unexpired cookie, the only authentication methods showing are: Standard Registration Legacy Authentication Module - there is no mention of LDAP, Active Directory or NIS !!! The only thing that I can think that has changed recently is that the box was updated from CentOS6.4 to CentOS6.5 and this was probably the first reboot since. I cant see any errors in any logfiles that would give me any clues where to look next. anyone have any thoughts ? Thanks in advance Rob -- 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: Post Review is unable to upload diff
Thanks Shaoyan for your response.
If I create a unified diff file using svn diff and then upload via post
review or Review Board web UI it works fine.
I have created a script that creates the unified diff, uploads via post
review, and then opens the web UI.
I am also looking at updating the post review script to create a unified
diff for subversion.
Regards,
Rob
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:09:50 AM UTC+1, Shaoyan Huang wrote:
I think the problem is caused by svn 1.7.x. It output some extra
information for svn diff and cause ReviewBoard to raise FileNotFound
exception.
It's ok if you use TSVN 1.7.x to generate patch and submit by Web UI.
Shaoyan Huang
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:44:29 PM UTC+8, Rob wrote:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for getting back to me.
The output I gave was from a post commit, but I did try pre-commit and
the same error occurred.
I have looked at repository path in Review Board and it points to the
root of our Subvversion repository. We also have a mirror path that points
to a sub directory inside it.
Regards,
Rob
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:51:57 AM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
Is the error output that you provided from the attempts before
committing the file, or after? I ask because it seems to be specifying an
explicit revision.
Can you also tell me if the repository path in Review Board points to
the very base of the SVN repository, or to a subdirectory inside it? It
should be the root, and problems like these can occur if not.
Christian
On Aug 15, 2012, at 13:06, Rob robert...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have an issue with Review Board uploading a differences file that has
a new source file in it (no previous history).
These are the steps I followed;
I created a file and added it using TortoiseSvn but not committed.
I then opened a command prompt and entered the text post-review -d -r19
The following error occurred
Got API Error 207 (HTTP code 400): The file was not found in the
repository
Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'file', u'err': {u'msg': u'The file w
as not found in the repository', u'code': 207}, u'revision': u'4026'}
Error uploading diff
Your review request still exists, but the diff is not attached.
The file listed as not being found in the repository is the newly added
file. I then commited the file using subversion and the same problem still
occured. I have searched for similar issues in the review board group but I
was unable to find the same symptoms.
Any advice on this would be much appreciated.
Review Board version = 1.6.3
RBTools Version = 0.4.1
TortoiseSvn Version = 1.7.7
Subversion = 1.7.5
Regards,
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...@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: Post Review is unable to upload diff
Hi Christian,
Thanks for getting back to me.
The output I gave was from a post commit, but I did try pre-commit and the
same error occurred.
I have looked at repository path in Review Board and it points to the root
of our Subvversion repository. We also have a mirror path that points to a
sub directory inside it.
Regards,
Rob
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:51:57 AM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
Is the error output that you provided from the attempts before committing
the file, or after? I ask because it seems to be specifying an explicit
revision.
Can you also tell me if the repository path in Review Board points to the
very base of the SVN repository, or to a subdirectory inside it? It should
be the root, and problems like these can occur if not.
Christian
On Aug 15, 2012, at 13:06, Rob robert...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Hi,
I have an issue with Review Board uploading a differences file that has a
new source file in it (no previous history).
These are the steps I followed;
I created a file and added it using TortoiseSvn but not committed.
I then opened a command prompt and entered the text post-review -d -r19
The following error occurred
Got API Error 207 (HTTP code 400): The file was not found in the
repository
Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'file', u'err': {u'msg': u'The file w
as not found in the repository', u'code': 207}, u'revision': u'4026'}
Error uploading diff
Your review request still exists, but the diff is not attached.
The file listed as not being found in the repository is the newly added
file. I then commited the file using subversion and the same problem still
occured. I have searched for similar issues in the review board group but I
was unable to find the same symptoms.
Any advice on this would be much appreciated.
Review Board version = 1.6.3
RBTools Version = 0.4.1
TortoiseSvn Version = 1.7.7
Subversion = 1.7.5
Regards,
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...@googlegroups.com javascript:
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
Post Review is unable to upload diff
Hi,
I have an issue with Review Board uploading a differences file that has a
new source file in it (no previous history).
These are the steps I followed;
I created a file and added it using TortoiseSvn but not committed.
I then opened a command prompt and entered the text post-review -d -r19
The following error occurred
Got API Error 207 (HTTP code 400): The file was not found in the
repository
Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'file', u'err': {u'msg': u'The file w
as not found in the repository', u'code': 207}, u'revision': u'4026'}
Error uploading diff
Your review request still exists, but the diff is not attached.
The file listed as not being found in the repository is the newly added
file. I then commited the file using subversion and the same problem still
occured. I have searched for similar issues in the review board group but I
was unable to find the same symptoms.
Any advice on this would be much appreciated.
Review Board version = 1.6.3
RBTools Version = 0.4.1
TortoiseSvn Version = 1.7.7
Subversion = 1.7.5
Regards,
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: Preventing self-reviews
Doesn't look like this was ever answered. We've got the same situation that we want to prevent self-review (we have another mechanism for checking in without review). On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:50 AM UTC-8, Igor Berger wrote: Agreed. But I want to make sure at least 1 other person looks at my changes. It's good that I can comment on a review I submitted. But I want to enforce that someone else has to click Ship It. -- 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: Preventing self-reviews
Thanks for the clarification. We'll look into it on our end in the pre-commit integration. On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:55:44 AM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote: Review Board actively tries to stay out of this sort of policy. We don't have anything for preventing self-reviews, and likely won't. In the end, we have no control whether a person is allowed to submit code. That's a company policy sort of thing. So, it doesn't make a lot of sense to prevent a user from reviewing their own code or marking Ship It. If you have some form of pre-commit hook that checks if code has been reviewed, it should also be able to filter out the Ship Its from the author quite easily. Christian On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Rob Fagen wrote: Doesn't look like this was ever answered. We've got the same situation that we want to prevent self-review (we have another mechanism for checking in without review). On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:50 AM UTC-8, Igor Berger wrote: Agreed. But I want to make sure at least 1 other person looks at my changes. It's good that I can comment on a review I submitted. But I want to enforce that someone else has to click Ship It. -- 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
Bug in Reviewboard 1.6beta2 and 1.6RC1
, in _render return self.nodelist.render(context) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py, line 744, in render bits.append(self.render_node(node, context)) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py, line 757, in render_node return node.render(context) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/defaulttags.py, line 394, in render return strip_spaces_between_tags(self.nodelist.render(context).strip()) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py, line 744, in render bits.append(self.render_node(node, context)) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py, line 757, in render_node return node.render(context) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/defaulttags.py, line 227, in render nodelist.append(node.render(context)) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/defaulttags.py, line 497, in render values = dict([(key, val.resolve(context)) for key, val in File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py, line 536, in resolve new_obj = func(obj, *arg_vals) File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6rc1-py2.4.egg/reviewboard/reviews/templatetags/reviewtags.py, line 397, in bug_url return review_request.repository.bug_tracker % bug_id TypeError: not enough arguments for format string Let me know if I can provide any more info. Regards, 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: Bug in Reviewboard 1.6beta2 and 1.6RC1
Ah, also just noticed that adding a bug number after the review was
created also triggers the error, confirming what you are saying about a
possible config issue rather than post-review doing something wrong.
In the repo admin screen I just have http://bugzilla.group.game.net;
as the Bug tracker URL and this used to work fine resulting in the
correct links (at least in 1.6beta1 - I dont remember if we have added
any new reviews since updating to 1.6beta2).
Was a change made
somewhere requiring the url to be specified as
http://bugzilla.group.game.net/show_bug.cgi?id=%s; ?
I've updated the
url against the repository in question and I'm still getting the same
error when trying to view a newly created review with a bug number
against it.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:19:15 -0700,
Christian Hammond wrote:
Sorry, I spoke too soon. This is already
checked. The problem actually may be too many %s in the bug tracker URL.
Can you check if there's only one?
Christian
--
Christian
Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com [10]
Review Board -
http://www.reviewboard.org [11]
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
[12]
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Christian Hammond wrote:
We can fix this symptom, but it's due to a configuration issue. The
bug tracker configured for your repository is missing a %s.
I'll
put a fix in tonight for the crash. It just won't set up a link without
a fixed URL.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond -
chip...@chipx86.com [6]
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
[7]
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com [8]
On Fri, Jun 24,
2011 at 1:14 AM, Rob Coward wrote:
Hi,
I have just hit
an issue using post-review to upload a post-commit review of a
subversion revision range, specifying the --bugs-closed paramter. I was
using the 1.6beta2 version and have just upgraded to 1.6RC1 and the
problem still exists. The post-review is from RBTools 0.3.2.
Uploading a diff without using the --bugs-closed option works fine,
creating a draft review which can then be updated through the web ui.
However if I try to use the --bugs-closed option, it creates a review,
but whenever trying to view the review through the ui, I get the
following Internal Server Error:
Exception thrown for user
rcowa at http://reviewboard/r/55/ [1]
not enough arguments for
format string
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request,
*callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6rc1-py2.4.egg/reviewboard/accounts/decorators.py,
line 21, in _check
return view_func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6rc1-py2.4.egg/reviewboard/reviews/views.py,
line 433, in review_detail
RequestContext(request,
_make_review_request_context(review_request, {
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/shortcuts/__init__.py,
line 20, in render_to_response
return
HttpResponse(loader.render_to_string(*args, **kwargs),
**httpresponse_kwargs)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/loader.py,
line 183, in render_to_string
return
t.render(Context(dictionary))
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 123, in render
return self._render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 117, in _render
return self.nodelist.render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 744, in render
bits.append(self.render_node(node,
context))
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 757, in render_node
return node.render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/loader_tags.py,
line 127, in render
return compiled_parent._render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 117, in _render
return self.nodelist.render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 744, in render
bits.append(self.render_node(node,
context))
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 757, in render_node
return node.render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/loader_tags.py,
line 127, in render
return compiled_parent._render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 117, in _render
return self.nodelist.render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 744, in render
bits.append(self.render_node(node,
context))
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 757, in render_node
Re: Bug in Reviewboard 1.6beta2 and 1.6RC1
Hi Christian,
I guess something in the database must have got
corrupted somehow. I changed the drop down, changed it back to Bugzilla
and re-saved the repository details and all seems to be working again
now. The reviews where I had added a bug number now display without
error, and I can upload new review using post-review with the
--bugs-closed option as well.
Thanks for the help
Rob
On Fri, 24
Jun 2011 01:58:24 -0700, Christian Hammond wrote:
I imagine the bug
tracker was set to Bugzilla, with that being the bugzilla server. What
should happen is we should then auto-append the whole
show_bug.cgi?id=%s when saving the repository. Perhaps something went
wrong there. If you could try to reproduce that, by setting it back to
Bugzilla in the dropdown, it would help confirm that theory.
If you
could also send a screenshot of the repository page (to me directly,
probably with portions blurred out) it would help me to see the state of
things.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond -
chip...@chipx86.com [24]
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
[25]
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com [26]
On Fri, Jun 24,
2011 at 1:47 AM, Rob Coward wrote:
Ah, also just noticed that
adding a bug number after the review was created also triggers the
error, confirming what you are saying about a possible config issue
rather than post-review doing something wrong.
In the repo admin
screen I just have http://bugzilla.group.game.net [18] as the Bug
tracker URL and this used to work fine resulting in the correct links
(at least in 1.6beta1 - I dont remember if we have added any new reviews
since updating to 1.6beta2).
Was a change made somewhere
requiring the url to be specified as
http://bugzilla.group.game.net/show_bug.cgi?id=%s [19] ?
I've
updated the url against the repository in question and I'm still getting
the same error when trying to view a newly created review with a bug
number against it.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 24 Jun
2011 01:19:15 -0700, Christian Hammond wrote:
Sorry, I spoke
too soon. This is already checked. The problem actually may be too many
%s in the bug tracker URL. Can you check if there's only one?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
[10]
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org [11]
VMware, Inc.
- http://www.vmware.com [12]
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:16 AM,
Christian Hammond wrote:
We can fix this symptom, but it's due
to a configuration issue. The bug tracker configured for your repository
is missing a %s.
I'll put a fix in tonight for the crash. It
just won't set up a link without a fixed URL.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com [6]
Review
Board - http://www.reviewboard.org [7]
VMware, Inc. -
http://www.vmware.com [8]
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:14 AM,
Rob Coward wrote:
Hi,
I have just hit an issue
using post-review to upload a post-commit review of a subversion
revision range, specifying the --bugs-closed paramter. I was using the
1.6beta2 version and have just upgraded to 1.6RC1 and the problem still
exists. The post-review is from RBTools 0.3.2.
Uploading a
diff without using the --bugs-closed option works fine, creating a draft
review which can then be updated through the web ui. However if I try to
use the --bugs-closed option, it creates a review, but whenever trying
to view the review through the ui, I get the following Internal Server
Error:
Exception thrown for user rcowa at
http://reviewboard/r/55/ [1]
not enough arguments for
format string
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request,
*callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6rc1-py2.4.egg/reviewboard/accounts/decorators.py,
line 21, in _check
return view_func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6rc1-py2.4.egg/reviewboard/reviews/views.py,
line 433, in review_detail
RequestContext(request,
_make_review_request_context(review_request, {
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/shortcuts/__init__.py,
line 20, in render_to_response
return
HttpResponse(loader.render_to_string(*args, **kwargs),
**httpresponse_kwargs)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/loader.py,
line 183, in render_to_string
return
t.render(Context(dictionary))
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 123, in render
return self._render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 117, in _render
return self.nodelist.render(context)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py,
line 744, in render
bits.append(self.render_node(node,
context))
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.3-py2.4.egg/django/template/base.py
Re: Error in adding cvs repository
Hi Rohan, See http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/browse_thread/thread/9f14cc242a9ef367 for the issues I had. Regards, Rob On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT), ROAAN wrote: Did anybody face the similar issue in integrating CVS into ReviewBoard ? Thanks, Rohan. On Jun 12, 4:41 pm, ROAAN wrote: Name: pact-cvs-tree Hosting service: Custom Repository type: CVS Path: :pserver:my_usern...@pact-cvs.pact.cs.cmu.edu:/usr0/local/ cvsroot Username : my_username Password: my_password I am not sure if there is a info argument which is accepted by the cvs. Let me know if I am missing something or you need some additional info. Rohan. On Jun 12, 4:33 pm, Christian Hammond wrote: Can you show us what you tried? And the repository info from 'cvs info' on that repository? Christian viewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com [1] On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:25 PM, ROAAN wrote: Finally I upgraded my system and was able to install the ReviewBoard. However when I am trying to add the cvs repo. I always seem to be getting the error: A repository was not found at the specified path. 010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%I have tried different combinations of specifying the repo. There is no log being generated as well. Any help on how to set up the cvs repo ft:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%Thanks, Roha ote -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate to us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com [2] For more options, visit this group a ttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [3] Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [4] -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com [5] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en [6] Links: -- [1] http://www.vmware.com [2] mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com [3] http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [4] http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [5] mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com [6] 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
Hi Philipp,
I've pulled your latest code from git and updated my
install. It no longer errors, but just displays No pending revisions
found. on clicking on the 'Get Revisions' button.
I've checked in a
handful of new revisions too in case it remembered the revisions I had
previously listed manually in my previous tests, but its not returning
anything on screen.
Python isnt my language (I usually code in
perl/php/C) but taking a brief look at your code, I tried increasing the
freshness_delta variable as well, but it made no difference.
Let me
know if you would like me to try anything else.
Regards,
Rob
On
Wed, 11 May 2011 03:47:39 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote:
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.
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/ eback (most
recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages
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 ret
ews.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 subvers
brand new
repo I created for the task of reviewing your code, populated initially
with cvs2svn to import an e
2px solid; margin-left:5px;
width:100%Any thoughts ?
your hard work. Rob Coward On Fri, 6 May
2011 02:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wro
ft:5px;
width:100%
Hi,
type=cite style=padding-left:5px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%Did anyone
eft:5px; width:10
nce to have look at my post-commit implementation?
implementation is complete and
r-left:#1010ff 2px solid;
margin-left:5px; width:100%feature se
ady possible to create
requests by typing in #1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px;
width:100%Philipp
lid; margin-left:5px; width:100%-- Philipp
Henkel Citrix Online -www.citrix
:#1010ff 2px solid;
margin-left:5px; width:100%
tyle=padding-left:5px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%The views
expressed here are mine alone and have not been authorized not
necessarily reflect the views of, Citrix.
eft:#1010ff 2px solid;
margin-left:5px; width:100%Links: --
[1]http://www.citrixonline.com
-- Want to help the Review Board
project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [1] Happy
user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [2]
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe
from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[3] For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en [4]
Links:
--
[1] http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
[2]
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
[3]
mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[4]
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
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
On
Wed, 11 May 2011 23:38:03 +0100, Rob Coward wrote:
Hi Philipp,
I've pulled your latest code from git and updated my install. It no
longer errors, but just displays No pending revisions found. on
clicking on the 'Get Revisions' button.
I've checked in a handful
of new revisions too in case it remembered the revisions I had
previously listed manually in my previous tests, but its not returning
anything on screen.
Python isnt my language (I usually code in
perl/php/C) but taking a brief look at your code, I tried increasing the
freshness_delta variable as well, but it made no difference.
Let
me know if you would like me to try anything else.
Regards,
Rob
On Wed, 11 May 2011 03:47:39 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel
wrote:
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.
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/ Traceback (most
recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-pac
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
_checkl
viewboard/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'
T
repo is a brand
new repo I created for the task of reviewing your code, populated
initially with cvs2svn
#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left: 5px;
width: 100%;Any thoughts ?
anks for your hard work. Rob Coward On
Fri, 6 May 2011 02:43:05 -0700 (PDT), Phil
; margin-left: 5px;
width: 100%;
Hi,
ockquote style=padding-left: 5px;
border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin-left: 5px; width: 100%;Did
id; margin-left:
00%;had a chance to have look at my
post-commit implementation?
It is already possible to create
requests by typing in Philipp
rgin-left: 5px; width: 100%;--
Philipp Henkel Citrix Online -www.citrix
0ff 2px solid;
margin-left: 5px; width: 100%;
g-left: 5px; border-left: #1010ff
2px solid; margin-left: 5px; width: 100%;The views expressed here are
mine alone and have not been authorized not necessarily reflect the
views of, Citrix.
f 2px solid; margin-left: 5px; width:
100%;Links: -- [1]http://www.citrixonline.com
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [1] Happy user? Let us know at
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [2]
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe
from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[3] For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en [4]
--
Want to
help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [5]
Happy user? Let us know at
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [6]
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 [7]
Links:
--
[1] http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
[2]
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
[3]
mailto:reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[4]
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
[5]
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
[6]
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
[7]
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
Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
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 at http://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 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: Cannot add repository with cvs ext in 1.5.2 on RHEL5
FYI, I've got to the bottom of this with the help of the debug
output. It seems that whatever is calling rbssh is not picking up the
Username field and just passing the server component of the Path field.
As a result, the rbssh script is calculating the username from the user
running the script (aka apache), and of course the remote server is
denying access to the incoming ssh session for apache.
By specifying
the path as :ext:grouplb...@svn.group.game.net:/app01/repository/cvs
was also failing, as although rbssh was now getting the correct
username, it seems that something else was going awry in checking the
validity of the CVS repository as it errored with Unable to
authenticate against this repository using one of the supported
authentication types.
The only way I got this to work was to specify
the username both in the path and in the Username fields. I also had to
add svn.group.game.net:/app01/repository/cvs/ in the Mirror field to
allow post-review to find the repository when posting diffs.
Hope this
helps anyone else with the same issue.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 4 Mar
2011 12:30:25 -0800, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
What
OS/distro is in this on?
Try finding rbssh.py in your reviewboard
software installation dir (reviewboard/cmdline/rbssh.py). Back up this
file. We're going to make some modifications.
Near the top there
will be:
DEBUG = os.getenv('DEBUG_RBSSH')
Change this to:
DEBUG = True
Further down, you'll find a line:
logging.basicConfig(...). Should be around line 237.
Change the
filename='...' to point to a writeable path (/path/to/your/site/logs,
or /tmp, or something).
Then repeat your Add Repository, and check
for that log file. Assuming it was created, send it on to me privately
and I'll see if anything stands out.
Christian
--
Christian
Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com [5]
Review Board -
http://www.reviewboard.org [6]
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
[7]
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:33 AM, RobC wrote:
I've just
installed a new reviewboard server with 1.6 beta1 and am
hitting the
same issue. Anyone got any news on this ?
Thanks,
Rob
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [1]
Happy user? Let us know at
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [2]
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
To unsubscribe
from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[3]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en [4]
--
Want to
help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ [9]
Happy user? Let us know at
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ [10]
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 [11]
Links:
--
[1] http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
[2]
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
[3]
mailto:reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[4]
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
[5]
mailto:chip...@chipx86.com
[6] http://www.reviewboard.org
[7]
http://www.vmware.com
[8] mailto:r...@jive-videos.net
[9]
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
[10]
http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
[11]
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: Clean install on Centos5.5
Hi Christian,
Thank you for your reply. I have tried this install
on 2 seperate Centos servers, using the same MySQL backend server, both
with the same results. The copy/paste below was not from the first
attempt at creating the site on this server, but a subsequent retry
after first removing the /var/www/reviewboard.group.game.net [13]
directory. The first time I tried it, the results were identical but
there was additional output logging the creation of the database tables.
I didnt drop the database before the retries, hence it not recreating
the tables.
This is the contents of my settings file:
==
# Site-specific configuration
settings for Review Board
# Definitions of these settings can be found
at
# http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/
# Database
configuration
DATABASES = {
'default': {
'ENGINE': 'mysql',
'NAME':
'reviewboard',
'USER': 'xx',
'PASSWORD':
'',
'HOST': 'mysql.dev.game.co.uk',
'PORT': '',
},
}
# Unique secret key. Don't share this with anybody.
SECRET_KEY =
'xxx'
# Cache backend
settings.
CACHE_BACKEND = 'file:///tmp/reviewboard_cache'
# Extra site
information.
SITE_ID = 1
SITE_ROOT = '/'
FORCE_SCRIPT_NAME = ''
DEBUG =
False
==
This particular install
was not using memcached, but I have tried it selecting memcached with
the same results.
It wouldnt surprice me if one of the ReviewBoard
pre-req dependencies on Centos is not a high enough version. The
python-mysql module provided in the Centos Repository wasnt new enough
and as part of the installation I have had to download and install a
newer version.
One thought the mysql server I'm connecting to has
master-master replication setup between nodes, and one side-effect of
this is that autoincrementing id columns are not sequential . Does the
rb-site code make assumptions about the next allocated value in 'id'
columns ?
Thanks for your help,
Rob
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 21:26:17
-0800, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
So it looks like it
managed to create the database fine, but then the second step
(populating configuration) failed because the data just put into the
database couldn't be found.
Can you send me your
conf/settings_local.py? (You can clear out the database credentials and
secret key first).
Also, was this your very first attempt at
creating this site?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond -
chip...@chipx86.com [6]
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
[7]
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com [8]
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011
at 6:39 AM, RobC wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to install the latest
version of ReviewBoard on a Centos5.5
server, using mysql on a remote
server, apache and modpython,
following the instructions on your
site. However I am getting the
following on trying to configure a
site:
rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard.group.game.net [1]
.
.
* Installing the site...
Building site directories
... OK
Building site configuration files ... OK
Creating database
... Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/rb-site, line
7, in ?
sys.exit(
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1611, in main
command.run()
File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1177, in run
self.show_install_status()
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1436, in show_install_status
site.sync_database)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 703, in step
func()
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 339, in sync_database
self.run_manage_command(syncdb, params)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 397, in run_manage_command
execute_manager(reviewboard.settings, [__file__, cmd] + params)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/__init__.py, line 438, in execute_manager
utility.execute()
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/__init__.py, line 379, in execute
self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/base.py, line 191, in run_from_argv
self.execute(*args, **options.__dict__)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/base.py, line 220, in execute
output =
self.handle(*args, **options)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/base.py, line 351, in handle
return
self.handle_noargs(**options)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core
Re: Clean install on Centos5.5
Seems my hunch about the id fields was correct. I changed my config
to point to a specific node of my mysql cluster rather than the virtual
ip, and it started the autoincrement at 1 and the site created
successfully.
Wonder what would be involved in the rb-site code to
check the value of the id field inserted rather than assuming it started
at '1'.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:37:59 +, Rob
Coward wrote:
Hi Christian,
Thank you for your reply. I have
tried this install on 2 seperate Centos servers, using the same MySQL
backend server, both with the same results. The copy/paste below was not
from the first attempt at creating the site on this server, but a
subsequent retry after first removing the
/var/www/reviewboard.group.game.net [13] directory. The first time I
tried it, the results were identical but there was additional output
logging the creation of the database tables. I didnt drop the database
before the retries, hence it not recreating the tables.
This is
the contents of my settings file:
==
# Site-specific
configuration settings for Review Board
# Definitions of these
settings can be found at
#
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/
# Database
configuration
DATABASES = {
'default': {
'ENGINE': 'mysql',
'NAME': 'reviewboard',
'USER': 'xx',
'PASSWORD':
'',
'HOST': 'mysql.dev.game.co.uk',
'PORT': '',
},
}
# Unique secret key. Don't share this with anybody.
SECRET_KEY = 'xxx'
# Cache backend
settings.
CACHE_BACKEND = 'file:///tmp/reviewboard_cache'
# Extra
site information.
SITE_ID = 1
SITE_ROOT = '/'
FORCE_SCRIPT_NAME =
''
DEBUG = False
==
This
particular install was not using memcached, but I have tried it
selecting memcached with the same results.
It wouldnt surprice me
if one of the ReviewBoard pre-req dependencies on Centos is not a high
enough version. The python-mysql module provided in the Centos
Repository wasnt new enough and as part of the installation I have had
to download and install a newer version.
One thought the mysql
server I'm connecting to has master-master replication setup between
nodes, and one side-effect of this is that autoincrementing id columns
are not sequential . Does the rb-site code make assumptions about the
next allocated value in 'id' columns ?
Thanks for your help,
Rob
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 21:26:17 -0800, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
So it looks like it managed to create the database
fine, but then the second step (populating configuration) failed because
the data just put into the database couldn't be found.
Can you
send me your conf/settings_local.py? (You can clear out the database
credentials and secret key first).
Also, was this your very first
attempt at creating this site?
Christian
--
Christian
Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com [6]
Review Board -
http://www.reviewboard.org [7]
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
[8]
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:39 AM, RobC wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to install the latest version of ReviewBoard on a
Centos5.5
server, using mysql on a remote server, apache and
modpython,
following the instructions on your site. However I am
getting the
following on trying to configure a site:
rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard.group.game.net [1]
.
.
* Installing the site...
Building site directories ...
OK
Building site configuration files ... OK
Creating database
... Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/rb-site, line
7, in ?
sys.exit(
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1611, in main
command.run()
File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1177, in run
self.show_install_status()
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1436, in show_install_status
site.sync_database)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 703, in step
func()
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 339, in sync_database
self.run_manage_command(syncdb, params)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5.4-py2.4.egg/
reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 397, in run_manage_command
execute_manager(reviewboard.settings, [__file__, cmd] + params)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/__init__.py, line 438, in execute_manager
utility.execute()
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management/__init__.py, line 379, in execute
self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
File
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Django-1.2.5-py2.4.egg/django/
core/management
Re: LDAP configuration
I struggled a bit to make it work too, but here's what I finally used. I am running ReviewBoard on CentOS 5.2 under Apache/mod_python/Python 2.5.1/linux64. (The Python ldap module, linking to openldap libs I believe, is responsible for the actual connection.) LDAP server: ldap://serverhostname.example.com:389 LDAP base DN: dc=example,dc=com E-Mail Domain: leave blank E-mail LDAP attribute: mail Left Use TLS unchecked User Mask: ((objectclass=User) (mailNickname=%s)) - in our case, mailNickname is always the account name. I think 'sAMAccountName' is commonplace too. Basically extracts just the userid of the record. Our server requires a user to bind connect first, before doing the query. This is what Anonymous User Mask refers to (hint to RB authors: try renaming this field to something else?) For example, if 'jdoe' is the user I want to use for all lookups, on OU OrgUnit, you would put in: Anonymous User Mask: cn=jdoe,ou=OrgUnit,dc=example,dc=com Anonymous Password: ** -- just the password On Jan 28, 2:47 am, David courn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am trying to get reviewboard authentificate through our LDAP infrastructure, but I cannot make it work (got the specified object does not exist). I don't know much about LDAP unfortunately, so I am not sure where the error lies. We got trac connecting to LDAP, but at the apache level, as followed: AuthName Company Name AuthLDAPURL ldap://x.x.x.x:389/ou=people,dc=x,dc=y,dc=z; AuthLDAPBindDN cn=admin,dc=x,dc=y,dc=z AuthLDAPBindPassword xx FWIW, I could not make it work using the python ldap library either: l = ldap.open(x.x.x.x:389) username = cn=admin,dc=x,dc=y,dc=z password = x l.simple_bind(username, password) # fails with (2, 'No such file or directory') -- 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
Upgrade to RB 1.5 - registerForUpdates is not defined
Finished upgrading to RB 1.5. When viewing a review, the diff fragments show loading spinners that never end. Using Firebug, I see the following error in my JavaScript console: registerForUpdates is not defined registerForUpdates(2010-11-12 01:42:08); Where is this JavaScript routine defined? -- 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: Intermittent Problem with Diff Viewer
See also topic http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/browse_thread/thread/af0e34298072d5af# I have seen this problem with every version of ReviewBoard prior to 1.5. I am stuck at 1.0.4 at the moment. What I did to fix this was modify all the calls in the diffiviewer code below to use os.system() instead of the Python subprocess module. Something about the subprocess module does NOT play nicely under mod_python/Apache. Now for 1.5, I cannot upgrade because post-review is triggering a call to the new Paramiko module, which calls into Python's 'platform' module for the system() call. It turns out platform.system() ALSO uses subprocess.Popen instead of os.system(). I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing this. I bet it's a mod_python bug, Incidentally, mod_python is now a dead project. On Oct 27, 10:51 am, Dennis dennisfraz...@charter.net wrote: Using ReviewBoard 1.5 on Linux with Apache 2.2.15 and mod_python, we are getting intermittent but fairly frequent errors when attempting to view diffs with Perforce: (10, 'No child processes') Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py, line 153, in view_diff interdiffset, highlighting, True) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 1063, in get_diff_files large_data=True) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/Djblets-0.6.4-py2.6.egg/ djblets/util/misc.py, line 166, in cache_memoize data = lookup_callable() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 1062, in lambda enable_syntax_highlighting)), File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 548, in get_chunks old = get_original_file(filediff) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 364, in get_original_file large_data=True)[0] File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/Djblets-0.6.4-py2.6.egg/ djblets/util/misc.py, line 166, in cache_memoize data = lookup_callable() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 363, in lambda data = cache_memoize(key, lambda: [fetch_file(file, revision)], File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py, line 342, in fetch_file data = tool.get_file(file, revision) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.5-py2.6.egg/ reviewboard/scmtools/perforce.py, line 93, in get_file (res, errdata) = p.communicate() File /usr/lib/python2.6/subprocess.py, line 689, in communicate return self._communicate(input) File /usr/lib/python2.6/subprocess.py, line 1233, in _communicate self.wait() File /usr/lib/python2.6/subprocess.py, line 1157, in wait pid, sts = os.waitpid(self.pid, 0) OSError: [Errno 10] No child processes Often, repeating the attempt 2-3 times will eventually result in success. Any ideas on root cause or a workaround? Thanks very much, Dennis -- 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
ReviewBoard 1.5 under Apache: IOError when posting review from command line post-review tool
Starting in ReviewBoard 1.5 (Python 2.5.1 linux64 compiled
mod_python.so) the changes to use Paramiko result in this exception
when posting a review changelist (from Perforce) via the commandline
post-review tool.
HTTP POSTing to http://sw-web3.altera.com/review/api/json/accounts/login/:
{'username': 'rromano', 'password': '**'}
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /tools/python/2.5.1/linux64/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
mod_python/importer.py, line 1537, in HandlerDispatch
default=default_handler, arg=req, silent=hlist.silent)
File /tools/python/2.5.1/linux64/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
mod_python/importer.py, line 1229, in _process_target
result = _execute_target(config, req, object, arg)
File /tools/python/2.5.1/linux64/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
mod_python/importer.py, line 1128, in _execute_target
result = object(arg)
File /tools/django/trunk/1.2.3/django/core/handlers/modpython.py,
line 228, in handler
return ModPythonHandler()(req)
File /tools/django/trunk/1.2.3/django/core/handlers/modpython.py,
line 191, in __call__
self.load_middleware()
File /tools/django/trunk/1.2.3/django/core/handlers/base.py, line
40, in load_middleware
mod = import_module(mw_module)
File /tools/django/trunk/1.2.3/django/utils/importlib.py, line 35,
in import_module
__import__(name)
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/admin/middleware.py,
line 13, in lt;modulegt;
from reviewboard.webapi.json import service_not_configured
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/webapi/json.py, line 29,
in lt;modulegt;
from reviewboard.diffviewer.forms import EmptyDiffError
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/diffviewer/forms.py,
line 7, in lt;modulegt;
from reviewboard.diffviewer.diffutils import
DEFAULT_DIFF_COMPAT_VERSION
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py,
line 29, in lt;modulegt;
from reviewboard.scmtools.core import PRE_CREATION, HEAD
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/scmtools/core.py, line
5, in lt;modulegt;
from reviewboard.scmtools import sshutils
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/scmtools/sshutils.py,
line 5, in lt;modulegt;
import paramiko
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/paramiko/__init__.py,
line 69, in lt;modulegt;
from transport import randpool, SecurityOptions, Transport
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/paramiko/transport.py,
line 32, in lt;modulegt;
from paramiko import util
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/paramiko/util.py, line
32, in lt;modulegt;
from paramiko.common import *
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/paramiko/common.py, line
98, in lt;modulegt;
from rng import StrongLockingRandomPool
File /usr/local/altera/django/reviewboard/paramiko/rng.py, line
44, in lt;modulegt;
if ((platform is not None and platform.system().lower() ==
'windows') or
File /tools/python/2.5.1/linux64/lib/python2.5/platform.py, line
1042, in system
return uname()[0]
File /tools/python/2.5.1/linux64/lib/python2.5/platform.py, line
1014, in uname
processor = _syscmd_uname('-p','')
File /tools/python/2.5.1/linux64/lib/python2.5/platform.py, line
801, in _syscmd_uname
rc = f.close()
IOError: [Errno 10] No child processes
This looks very fundamental. Python's platform.uname() fn does a
subprocess call to `uname` and it's not liked.
Incidentally, under ReviewBoard 1.0.x, I had similar issues in
ReviewBoard's own code using subprocess.POpen to extract diffs from
`p4`. I simply changed the code to use os.system() and it worked fine
thereafter.
Are there known issues with the subprocess.POpen module when running
under Apache?
--
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
Hosted ReviewBoard?
My company is thinking about using review Board, but doesn't have a home to host it on. Does anyone know a good hosting provider for Review Board? -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
