Re: Binary Files handling in RB 1.0.5
Assuming that the files are marked as Binary files in Perforce, Review-Board should ignore them and properly say something along the lines of "Binary files differ." -Tom On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kunjal wrote: > Hello, > > In our development environment, we have lot of reviews only with > Binary files. > For example, If I post the review with 4 binary files, what should > happen when I click on View Diff? > > For now, I just try with one binary file, and I get below message when > I click on View Diff. > > Is there any work-around for binary files? > > The patch to 'c:/Perforce/Sources/Common/stack/hedge/sdt/usim.sbk' > didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/ > reviewboard.6SzZlW' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching > file /tmp/reviewboard.6SzZlW/tmpSst3n_ patch: malformed patch at > line 21: > > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ > views.py", line 153, in view_diff >interdiffset, highlighting, True) > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ > diffutils.py", line 623, in get_diff_files >large_data=True) > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/Djblets-0.5.5-py2.5.egg/djblets/util/misc.py", line 162, in > cache_memoize >data = lookup_callable() > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ > diffutils.py", line 622, in >enable_syntax_highlighting), > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ > diffutils.py", line 345, in get_chunks >new = get_patched_file(old, filediff) > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ > diffutils.py", line 261, in get_patched_file >return patch(filediff.diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file) > File "/projects/mob_tools/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/site- > packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ > diffutils.py", line 129, in patch >(filename, tempdir, patch_output)) > Exception: The patch to 'c:/Perforce/Sources/Common/stack/hedge/sdt/ > usim.sbk' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in > '/tmp/reviewboard.6SzZlW' for debugging purposes. > `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.6SzZlW/tmpSst3n_ > patch: malformed patch at line 21: > > -- > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at > http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Re: Installing PyLucene on Windows
Apache Solr - http://lucene.apache.org/solr/ & http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolPython PySolr - http://code.google.com/p/pysolr/ Whether they will be less of a pain to install, I simply don't know. -Tom On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Christian Hammond wrote: > No, but good luck with it :) > > I really would like to find a good replacement for PyLucene. It's a royal > pain to install. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > Review Board - http://www.review-board.org > VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel > wrote: > >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> I was thinking about adding search support to our Review Board >> installation, which would require the installation of PyLucene. Has >> somebody succeeded in getting this working on a Windows-based >> platform? >> >> Thanks, >> Thilo >> >> 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 >> -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- >> >> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: "Expand" broken since 1.0.3?
Yup. What you described seems to be the case. I make sure that everyone takes a look at the diff prior to submitting (there's an issue with diff/patch when there isn't an ending newline that prevents it from showing) just to make sure it works correctly. -Tom On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:20, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 22:21, Christian Hammond > wrote: > >> That's odd.. I'll try to reproduce that tonight or this weekend. > > > > I just tried reproducing the issue, but was not successful. So, this > > probably was a one-time glitch. I'll keep an eye on it to see whether > > it happens again. > > Now I was able to figure out the conditions under which the issue > manifests itself. Further details are available at: > http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=1334 > > Regards, > Thilo > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: "Expand" broken since 1.0.3?
Correct. The "Expand" links that expand individual files is not working correctly. "Expand All" seems to work however... -Tom On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 17:31, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel wrote: > >> can somebody confirm my observation that clicking on any of the "Expand" >> hyperlinks (to expand collapsed source code sections) in the RB diff viewer >> no longer works with 1.0.3? >> > > Just a brief update: The root cause seems to be a 404 error: > > Page not found (404) > Request Method: GET > Request URL: https://reviewboard > ./r/280/diff/0/fragment/2785/chunk/8/ > > Regards, > > Thilo > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: post-review login issue
http://www.mail-archive.com/reviewboard@googlegroups.com/msg02548.htmldescribes
the solution the P4PASSWORD issue. I'm not sure if it got much
further than that...
-Tom
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Hui Lin wrote:
>
> I am confused here. What does the diff uploading performed by the post-
> review script actually do? Does the script post the diff it generated
> to the review board server? If so, what's the use of the posted diff,
> if the diff display still needs to fetch everything from perforce?
>
> Also, how could I verify that the diff is loaded into review board
> server?
>
>
> On Sep 21, 10:58 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > We verify the files server-side on upload, and this requires pulling them
> > from the repository. Due to some bug with p4python or something (I don't
> > remember the exact cause) we directly call p4 to fetch the file. We then
> use
> > p4 later on to fetch the files for side-by-side display in the diff
> viewer.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > --
> > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Hui Lin
> wrote:
> >
> > > I believe uploading the diff is just a reviewer board function, which
> > > doesn't seem to have anything to do with to p4.
> >
> > > On Sep 21, 7:15 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> >
> > > > I don't personally have a good answer to the P4PASSWD issue, but
> there
> > > are
> > > > several good Perforce administrators on this list who can probably
> share
> > > > some advice for this.
> >
> > > > As for the error during posting, this is likely due to not having
> p4.exe
> > > > installed in the path where the web server can see it. There's a bug
> open
> > > > for catching this during repository configuration so it's not so
> > > confusing.
> > > > We're planning to add that for 1.1. For now, though, just put p4.exe
> some
> > > > place where the web server can see it in the PATH and it should work.
> >
> > > > Christian
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
> >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Hui Lin
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Yes, I solved this issue by putting what returned from "p4 info"
> > > > > exactly to the repository setup. My local p4 was using an alias of
> > > > > what from "p4 info".
> >
> > > > > Then, I bumped against another issue "Perforce password (P4PASSWD)
> > > > > invalid or unset.". Fortunately, I got the answer from the web:
> >
> > >http://www.mail-archive.com/reviewboard@googlegroups.com/msg00183.html
> >
> > > > > It worked. However, I don't feel quite comfortable of this
> approach,
> > > > > as the ticket expires in 12 hours. Is there a better solution?
> >
> > > > > Now, everything works until "post-review" tries to upload the diff,
> > > > > which would fail with the error:
> > > > >>>> Uploading diff, size: 9777
> > > > >>>> HTTP POSTing to
> > > > >http://b002481234dc0/api/json/reviewrequests/7/diff/new/:
> > > > > {}
> > > > >Error uploading diff: One or more fields had errors (105)
> > > > >>>> {'fields': {'path': ['[Error 2] The system cannot find the
> > > > > file specified']}, 'stat': 'fail', 'err': {'msg': 'One or more
> fields
> > > > > had errors', 'code': 105}}
> > > > >Your review request still exists, but the diff is not attached.
> >
> > > > > I am using the diffutil from GnuWin32.
> >
> > > > > On Sep 21, 2:50 pm, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, it's a pain. I really do want to improve our repository
> > > comparison
> > > > > > code. Right now we use a direct look-up for efficiency reasons,
> but
> > > if we
> > > > > > cached the results and allowed each repository backend to do its
> own
> > > > > > comparison, we could remove some of these complications.
> >
> > > > > > Christian
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > > > > Review Board -http://www.review-board.org
> > > > > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
> >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Lacoste, Dana (TSG Software San
> > > Diego)
> > > > > <
> >
> > > > > > dana.laco...@hp.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Yeah, this one got me.
> >
> > > > > > > Particularly because what I set for my "$P4PORT" was NOT what
> the
> > > > > server
> > > > > > > returned in `p4 info` (I used an IP address because I've had
> DNS
> > > issues
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the past, but the server returned its hostname.)
> >
> > > > > > > J
> >
> > > > > > > Dana Lacoste
> >
> > > > > > > *From:* reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> > > > > reviewbo...@googlegroups.com]
> > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Christian Hammond
> > > > > > > *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2009 12:31 PM
> > > > > > > *To:* reviewboard@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: post-review login issue
> >
> > > > > > > Make sure that the repository Path field
Re: Failed to execute command: ['svn', 'diff', '--diff-cmd=diff']
Pubudu: http://review-board.org/docs/manual/dev/admin/management/repositories/ You need to add your subversion repository to review-board. -Tom On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Pubudu Rathnayake wrote: > Hello Christian, > > After installing GNU Diff ,i did post-review and it failed again. > > C:\V10>c:\python25\Python.exe c:\python25\scripts\post-review > Error creating review request: The repository path specified is not in the > list > of known repositories (code 206) > > is this related to SVN? > > pubudu > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Christian Hammond wrote: > >> You need to install GNU Diff and add the directory it's installed in to >> your path. >> >> Christian >> >> -- >> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com >> Review Board - http://www.review-board.org >> VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Pubudu Rathnayake wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> i did change in a file >>> ( ac_module/forms/ac_JournalDetailForm/ac_JournalDetailForm_methods.js ) and >>> tried post-review. >>> then what i got on the console is >>> >>> C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\servoy_workspace>post-review >>> >>> C:\Documents and >>> Settings\Administrator\servoy_workspace>c:\python25\Python.exe >>> c:\python25\scripts\post-review >>> Failed to execute command: ['svn', 'diff', '--diff-cmd=diff'] >>> ['Index: >>> ac_module/forms/ac_JournalDetailForm/ac_JournalDetailForm_methods.js\n' >>> , >>> '===\n', >>> "svn: >>> Can't start process 'diff': The system cannot find the file specified. >>> \n"] >>> >>> >>> someone there to help me out to find what the issue is, >>> >>> pubudu >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Error 206: Repository path not specified
On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Christian Hammond wrote: > Make sure for Perforce that the Path is an exact match for the > server name specified in: > > p4 info > > If they differ at all, it will not work. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com > Review Board - http://www.review-board.org > VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:07 PM, jdt141 > wrote: > > Hi All - > > Trying to work out a new kink in our review board setup. IT did some > migration work and we've been having trouble ever since. The server is > up and running (on Ubuntu 9.04), but my problem is when creating a > review request with post-review. I get the following error: > > "Error creating review request: The repository path specified is not > in the list of known repositories (code 206)". > > I have found other posts about this error, but the solution is to > check the repository path and mirror name. Both of those are set > identical (the domain name of our Perforce server). Any other reasons > why we'd be getting this error? Thanks. > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Discussion about policy support.
I'm not exactly familiar with it, but from a quick Google search, I found a ANTLR python runtime library... http://www.antlr.org/download/Python -Tom On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Eduardo Felipe wrote: > Hi there! > > I'm Eduardo and I'm working on Reviewboard for Google Summer of Code. > My proposal included policy support, and as I was discussing it with > Christian on IRC when he asked me to open up the discussion to the > entire community. > > So, to quote (parts of) my proposal: > > > > During the deployment of ReviewBoard in my last employer we've had to > establish that no code is good until it was reviewed by at least three > programmers, two being senior. Since currently there is no way to > specify this in ReviewBoard reviews sometimes ended Close as submitted > without the minimum reviews rule. Talking to everyone about it solved > the problem, but in a large organization there should be a way to > prevent users from breaking the rules. > > As such I propose, based on the suggestion on the Wiki, to create an > admin module to allow arbitrary policies for common actions. In this > way a rule could be created for anything, from reviewing, to updating > a diff, to marking it "Ship it!" or allowing it to be closed, deleted > or submitted, viewing a review request, reviewing it, joining a group, > etc. covering all the aspects needed for policy support. > > A suggested implementation would be based on filters, AKA predicates, > used to allow or disallow an specific action. > > The priority should be what users want the most, and the interface can > be done in the regular way or providing a Domain Specific Language, a > very reduced subset of python, much similar to Django's template > engine. > > Optionally the access to repository could be based on user's > permission, instead of a global repository permission, by using the > user's own credential to the repository, adding an extra level of > protection. > > > > Now, to get to the good stuff: > > I think it is necessary to have a way of defining arbitrary rules > based on the attributes of objects involved in an action. > For instance, the objects involved in the action of "Close as > submitted" is the user who is performing the action and the review he > is performing it to. > > Now one could want to, for instance, create a rule such as "Review > requests can only be closed as submitted if they have at least two > ship-its". In order to express that in a neat way, I'm thinking about > implementing what is called a "Predicate Editor" or "Expression > Builder". I've attached a couple of examples so you can get a grip of > what I'm thinking of doing. > > This predicate editor can test any aspect of pretty much any attribute > of the objects involved in the action. So you can check things like > "User belongs to group Foo" or even the negation as "User does not > belong to group Foo", strings attributes such as "Review title > contains BAR", date attributes "Review updated in the last 3 days", > etc. > > By now you can imagine this is a complex feature. Indeed is so complex > that having a Domain Specific Language for dealing with those > predicates is NOT an overkill. The idea behind having a DSL is that we > can store the predicates as text in the database, allowing them to be > shared and migrate, but this DSL is not Python code, nor it should be, > and as such it needs to be compiled down to python, evaluated and > stored into memory, so they can be used to test actions later on. > > There is a limit of how far a regex based parser can go. If the DSL > turns out to be a Context free language, regex simply won't be able to > parse it. Now we can have two approaches for this problem: > 1 - Create the DSL as an XML-type language, and use a XML parser + a > custom DOM walker to generate the python code. > 2 - Create a DSL thats more human friendly than XML, and use a > compiler generator tool, like ANTRL, to generate a compiler that will > in turn yield the python code. > > The advantage of approach 1 is that it won't need any external > library, as python already have XML parsing libs included. The > disadvantage of this approach is that I think it will be harder to > build a parser for the web interface that also manipulates it. I could > be wrong, but I've been burned before by XML in a browser, and I > started using JSON, which is more "javascript friendly". > > Using the second approach is easier to build a small, readable, > parseable language, but in order to compile it down to python we would > need to include an external resource, such as a runtime lib for ANTRL, > and that could have a great onus for the developers (the install of > ANTLR is kinda of a PITA). > > This is a hard decision, so I would very much appreciate you input on > it. If there is a policy wanted that a predicate engine would not be > able to check, please let me know so we can figure something else out. > > Thanks a lot. > > Eduardo. > > > > --~--~-~--~-
Re: Perforce server security level error when post a review
I wouldn't know where to put this in ReviewBoard, but it's probably necessary to run "run_login()" on the p4 object immediately after running "connect()." -Tom On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Jason Lee wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I met another problem when post a perforce review. > > I install the RB on Windows. > The command is : post-review.py -d 118527 > And then I met a perforce exception. > > The logs are below: > > P4Exception at /api/json/reviewrequests/new/ > > [P4#run] Errors during command execution( "p4 describe -s 118527" ) > >[Error]: Password not allowed at this server security level, use 'p4 > login'. > > > Request Method: POST > Request URL:http://127.0.0.1:80/api/json/reviewrequests/new/ > Exception Type: P4Exception > Exception Value: > > [P4#run] Errors during command execution( "p4 describe -s 118527" ) > >[Error]: Password not allowed at this server security level, use 'p4 > login'. > > > Exception Location: C:\Python25\lib\site-packages\P4.py in run, line > 284 > Python Executable: D:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation > \Apache2.2\bin\httpd.exe > Python Version: 2.5.4 > Python Path: > Server time:Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:56:01 +0800 > === > > I think that's because of the higher P4 server security level. Because > when I use my own perforce server with default security level, I can > post the review successfully. > > Anyone knows how to fix this problem? > Thanks. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reviewboard 1.0 Rc1 Xp installation View Diff not working!
Is this a fresh install? IIRC, I ran into this issue because I didn't have MinGW (sp?) tools installed. ReviewBoard has a dependency on the GNU utils patch and diff. -Tom On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Noam Bunder wrote: > Install it on Ubuntu - you will be up and running in minutes. > - Just a suggestion. > > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:22 PM, marshall wrote: > >> >> Hi ALL: >> I just installed reviewboard 1.0 RC1 on an XP sp2 machine with Apache >> + MySQL + Subversion configure.the installation is smooth. and I can >> upload svn diff files. but when I push the "ViewDiff" button. I always >> got this error message: >> [Error 2] >> >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-1.0rc1-py2.5.egg >> \reviewboard\diffviewer\views.py", line 152, in view_diff >>interdiffset, highlighting, True) >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-1.0rc1-py2.5.egg >> \reviewboard\diffviewer\diffutils.py", line 620, in get_diff_files >>large_data=True) >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\Djblets-0.5rc1-py2.5.egg\djblets >> \util\misc.py", line 143, in cache_memoize >>data = lookup_callable() >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-1.0rc1-py2.5.egg >> \reviewboard\diffviewer\diffutils.py", line 619, in >>enable_syntax_highlighting), >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-1.0rc1-py2.5.egg >> \reviewboard\diffviewer\diffutils.py", line 342, in get_chunks >>new = get_patched_file(old, filediff) >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-1.0rc1-py2.5.egg >> \reviewboard\diffviewer\diffutils.py", line 258, in get_patched_file >>return patch(filediff.diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file) >> File "c:\python25\lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-1.0rc1-py2.5.egg >> \reviewboard\diffviewer\diffutils.py", line 107, in patch >>stderr=subprocess.STDOUT) >> File "C:\Python25\Lib\subprocess.py", line 594, in __init__ >>errread, errwrite) >> File "C:\Python25\Lib\subprocess.py", line 822, in _execute_child >>startupinfo) >> WindowsError: [Error 2] >> >> I have searched the group and look at the subprocess.py code. It seems >> related to the command line invoke of patch.exe. but I have gnu patch >> in my system path. and i can invoke it from windows command window. so >> can anyone suggest my further move ? besides the logging seems not >> working either. I enable logging in the admin panel. but the logs dir >> have no files. >> Any feedback is appreciated! thanks for your help. I really really >> want to use this pretty software in my group. >> >> Regards >> >> Marshall >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Review Bord and Perforce integration problem
This is an issue we've run into as well. While I may be incorrect in my
assumption here, since I haven't gotten around to digging deeper,
ReviewBoard compares the server connection's FQDN to the domain name you
specified in the administration settings. Two issues:
1) If you try to provide an alias domain name, it fails.
2) If you try to use a perforce proxy server it will fail because
ReviewBoard tries to reach the original perforce server. This can be an
issue, especially when post-review grabs diffs using the original perforce
server which is across the Atlantic :-(.
While not a showstopper, it's merely an inconvenience. The simple solution
is to grab:
{'repository_path': 'perforce.oberonmedia.local:1666', 'changenum': '73292'}
>
and add "perforce.oberonmedia.local:1666" as one of the servers in
administration.
-Tom
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Christian Hammond wrote:
> You're using a repository that Review Board doesn't know. You'll have to
> make sure the Review Board server has an entry for (and can reach)
> perforce.oberonmedia.local:1666.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
> VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Avivale wrote:
>
>>
>> I am trying to create Review Request for an existing change list and
>> get the following error:
>>
>> >post-review.py -d 73292
>>
>> >>> p4 info
>> >>> repository info: Path: perforce.oberonmedia.local:1666, Base path:
>> None, Supports changesets: True
>> >>> Generating diff for changenum 73292
>> >>> p4 describe -s 73292
>> >>> Processing edit of //depot/Aviva/Branch2/Doc2.txt
>> >>> Writing "//depot/Aviva/Branch2/Doc2.txt#2" to
>> "c:\docume~1\admini~1\locals~1\temp\1\tmpixyye8"
>> >>> p4 print -q //depot/Aviva/Branch2/Doc2.txt#2
>> >>> p4 where //depot/Aviva/Branch2/Doc2.txt
>> >>> diff -urNp c:\docume~1\admini~1\locals~1\temp\1\tmpixyye8
>> C:/WS/Aviva.Levin_ReviewBoard\depot\Aviva\Branch2\Doc2.txt
>> >>> Looking for 'review.example.com /' cookie in C:\Documents and
>> Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Application
>> Data\.post-review-cookies.txt
>> >>> Loaded valid cookie -- no login required
>> >>> Attempting to create review request for 73292
>> >>> HTTP POSTing to
>> http://review.example.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
>> {'repository_path': 'perforce.oberonmedia.local:1666', 'changenum': '73292'}
>> Error creating review request: The repository path specified is not in
>> the list of known repositories (code 206)
>>
>> System setteings are :
>> P4PORT=perforce:1666
>> P4CLIENT=Aviva.Levin_ReviewBoard
>> P4USER=Aviva.Levin
>>
>> OS is WIN.
>>
>> Have anyone some suggestion for resolution of this issue?
>>
>> Tx,
>> Aviva
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
AD Authentication Supported?
It's not exactly clear from the documentation (and other posts made on the mailing list). Is AD Authentication (officially) supported by Review-Board? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
