Re: ReviewBoard search question
Ok great, thanks! Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Nov 2017, at 20:49, Christian Hammond 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 >> 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: 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 Octobe
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/
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 = inde
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
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 > > 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)
>>>
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 158, 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'.
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 19, in handle
call_command('rebuild_index', interactive=False)
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/rebuild_index.py",
line 26, in handle
call_command('update_index', **options)
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 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 updat
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 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
>> 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
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",
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 19, in handle
call_command('rebuild_index', interactive=False)
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/rebuild_index.py",
line 26, in handle
call_command('update_index', **options)
Fi
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
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 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 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))
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).
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 19, in handle
call_command('rebuild_index', interactive=False)
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/rebuild_index.py",
line 26, in handle
call_command('update_index', **options)
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 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/upd
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
Hi Christian,
Ok, lets hope this can tell you something useful...
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 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)
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 19, in handle
call_command('rebuild_index', interactive=False)
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/rebuild_index.py",
line 16, in handle
call_command('update_index', **options)
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 "/
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
']),
int(data['month']), int(data['day']))
else:
raise SearchFieldError("Date provided to '%s' field doesn't
appear to be a valid date string: '%s'" % (self.instance_name, value))
return value
class DateTimeField(SearchField):
field_type = 'datetime'
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
if kwargs.get('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):
>>
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
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-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 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)))
SearchFieldError: The model ''
('' -- ReviewRequest) does not have a
model_attr 'commit' (True).
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 19, in handle
call_command('rebuild_index', interactive=False)
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/rebuild_index.py",
line 16, in handle
call_command('update_index', **options)
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/sit
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 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> &
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 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
>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>> execut
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
>>> c
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_
Re: Index failure after upgrade to ReviewBoard 2.5.16
Hi Christian,
How strange! I’ll take a look...
Thanks
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
> On 5 Oct 2017, at 18:38, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Looks like the version of Haystack being run is claiming to be 2.1.1 dev. I
> don't know what this version might be doing for the attribute lookup, but I'd
> start by trying to solve the version issue, make sure you're running a 2.3.x
> release.
>
> I would be interested to find out what line 86
> of/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py looks like.
>
> Christian
>
>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 05:28 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>> wrote:
>> 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')
>>> F
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)
>
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/comman
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/li
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",
>
> l
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-pac
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
prep
Re: I'm seeing a "The file was not found in the repository" error against a Git server but don't know why...
I believe I figured this out.
Turns out, a space had snuck into a URL for repository configuration.
Perhaps the server should validate that the URL has no spaces?
Eric.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 6:35 PM, David Trowbridge
wrote:
> Eric,
>
> How is the repository configured in the Review Board admin UI?
>
> -David
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:12 PM eric via reviewboard <
> reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Very confused. Perhaps this is fixed by an upgrade? I'm running 2.5.9.
>>
>> I've got a user who clones a Git repository, makes a random change to the
>> source, commits the change, then tries "rbt post -d". It fails. I've been
>> able to reproduce the problem, so it isn't restricted to the specific user.
>>
>> (Note that I've blanked details specific to our environment, that seem
>> unrelated to the bug.)
>>
>> >>> RBTools 0.7.10
>> >>> Python 2.7.10 (default, Feb 7 2017, 00:08:15)
>> ___
>> >>> Command line: rbt post -d
>> >>> Running: tf vc help
>> >>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>> >>> Command exited with rc 1: ['svn', '--non-interactive', u'info']
>> svn: E155007: '___' is not a working copy
>> ---
>> >>> 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.master.merge
>> >>> Running: git config --get branch.master.remote
>> >>> Running: git config --get remote.origin.url
>> >>> repository info: Path: https://__, Base path: ,
>> Supports changesets: False
>> >>> Making HTTP GET request to https://___api/
>> >>> Running: git rev-parse refs/heads/master
>> >>> Running: git merge-base e7b4515500eddbacd3846f24e59e6b5c5672fa6b
>> origin/master
>> >>> Running: git rev-parse 0c5abaf3d4854a4e13f084b85aa7bb9f3b8c491e
>> >>> Running: git status --porcelain --untracked-files=no
>> --ignore-submodules=dirty
>> >>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir
>> >>> Running: git version
>> >>> Running: git -c core.quotepath=false -c diff.noprefix=false diff
>> --no-color --full-index --ignore-submodules -M --no-ext-diff
>> 0c5abaf3d4854a4e13f084b85aa7bb9f3b8c491e..e7b4515500eddbacd3846f24e59e6b
>> 5c5672fa6b
>> >>> Making HTTP GET request to https://__api/
>> validation/diffs/
>> >>> Cached response for HTTP GET
>> >>> https://api/validation/diffs/
>> expired and was modified
>> >>> Making HTTP POST request to https://api/
>> validation/diffs/
>> >>> Got API Error 207 (HTTP code 400): The file was not found in the
>> repository.
>> >>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'file': u'karma.conf.js', u'err':
>> {u'msg': u'The file was not found in the repository.', u'code': 207},
>> u'revision': u'3c350734aaf218bc5d8c2b5ee1e257ff22ac2e7d'}
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/local/bin/rbt", line 9, in
>> load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.10', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
>> File
>> "/Library/Python/2.7/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 "/Library/Python/2.7/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
>> "/Library/Python/2.7/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
>>
>> What's going on, and how do I fix it?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 r
I'm seeing a "The file was not found in the repository" error against a Git server but don't know why...
Very confused. Perhaps this is fixed by an upgrade? I'm running 2.5.9.
I've got a user who clones a Git repository, makes a random change to the
source, commits the change, then tries "rbt post -d". It fails. I've been
able to reproduce the problem, so it isn't restricted to the specific user.
(Note that I've blanked details specific to our environment, that seem
unrelated to the bug.)
>>> RBTools 0.7.10
>>> Python 2.7.10 (default, Feb 7 2017, 00:08:15)
___
>>> Command line: rbt post -d
>>> Running: tf vc help
>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>>> Command exited with rc 1: ['svn', '--non-interactive', u'info']
svn: E155007: '___' is not a working copy
---
>>> 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.master.merge
>>> Running: git config --get branch.master.remote
>>> Running: git config --get remote.origin.url
>>> repository info: Path: https://__, Base path: ,
Supports changesets: False
>>> Making HTTP GET request to https://___api/
>>> Running: git rev-parse refs/heads/master
>>> Running: git merge-base e7b4515500eddbacd3846f24e59e6b5c5672fa6b
origin/master
>>> Running: git rev-parse 0c5abaf3d4854a4e13f084b85aa7bb9f3b8c491e
>>> Running: git status --porcelain --untracked-files=no
--ignore-submodules=dirty
>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir
>>> Running: git version
>>> Running: git -c core.quotepath=false -c diff.noprefix=false diff
--no-color --full-index --ignore-submodules -M --no-ext-diff
0c5abaf3d4854a4e13f084b85aa7bb9f3b8c491e..e7b4515500eddbacd3846f24e59e6b5c5672fa6b
>>> Making HTTP GET request to
https://__api/validation/diffs/
>>> Cached response for HTTP GET
https://api/validation/diffs/ expired and was modified
>>> Making HTTP POST request to
https://api/validation/diffs/
>>> Got API Error 207 (HTTP code 400): The file was not found in the
repository.
>>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'file': u'karma.conf.js', u'err':
{u'msg': u'The file was not found in the repository.', u'code': 207},
u'revision': u'3c350734aaf218bc5d8c2b5ee1e257ff22ac2e7d'}
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/bin/rbt", line 9, in
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.10', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
File
"/Library/Python/2.7/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
"/Library/Python/2.7/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
"/Library/Python/2.7/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
What's going on, and how do I fix it?
Eric
--
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: 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&force-text-type=html&include-text-types=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 > ret
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, Quick question from our DBA... - what does they mean exactly by 'unset the field' - setting the field to null? I have checked both commit_id and changenum to identify the fields that have duplicate values (select commit_id, count(*) c from reviews_reviewrequest group by commit_id having c>1;) There are 12 rows for commit_id and 100 for changenum - should we change all of them? - Thanks Rob On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:43:21 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote: > > 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&force-text-type=html&include-text-types=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-package
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&force-text-type=html&include-text-types=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 &
Integrity Error: 1062 Duplicate Entry
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&force-text-type=html&include-text-types=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) 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-pac
Re: Review groups UI not letting me delete users....
Perfect! Thanks for letting me know!
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:37 PM, David Trowbridge
wrote:
> Eric,
>
> This is a known bug where some of the existing users in the group have
> since been marked "inactive". If you remove those users, you should be able
> to save it.
>
> We're getting a fix in for 2.5.10.
>
> -David
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:39 AM eric via reviewboard <
> reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I recently upgraded our deployment of ReviewBoard from 2.0.X to 2.5.9.
>> Now, some of my reviewboard instance owners are reporting that they cannot
>> edit review groups.
>>
>> Specifically, on this page: ${server_root_path}/admin/db/reviews/group/1/
>>
>> the UI for removing users from the a review group doesn't seem to work.
>> When I tried it myself, as superuser, I also ran into problems.
>>
>> In the "ACCESS CONTROL" area of the page, in the box listing the users,
>> the "x" on the right side of each row listing a user - it doesn't highlight
>> for me when I mouse-over the "x". Clicking on the "x" has no effect. I was
>> able to get it to work briefly by adding a user to the group, and then the
>> "x" controls would highlight. However, as soon as I clicked one, they
>> stopped working again.
>>
>> Is this a general problem with the software, or something about our
>> deployment?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Eric.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
> --
> 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/as3plUll1OE/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.
Review groups UI not letting me delete users....
I recently upgraded our deployment of ReviewBoard from 2.0.X to 2.5.9. Now,
some of my reviewboard instance owners are reporting that they cannot edit
review groups.
Specifically, on this page: ${server_root_path}/admin/db/reviews/group/1/
the UI for removing users from the a review group doesn't seem to work.
When I tried it myself, as superuser, I also ran into problems.
In the "ACCESS CONTROL" area of the page, in the box listing the users, the
"x" on the right side of each row listing a user - it doesn't highlight for
me when I mouse-over the "x". Clicking on the "x" has no effect. I was able
to get it to work briefly by adding a user to the group, and then the "x"
controls would highlight. However, as soon as I clicked one, they stopped
working again.
Is this a general problem with the software, or something about our
deployment?
Thanks!
Eric.
--
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 diff obscures changes because it considers blank lines to match.
When review board presents the differences between the baseline and the changed code, it considers that blank lines in the old code match blank lines in the new code. Therefore, it obscures what really changed because it will show the deletion of a large block of code as dozens of small chunks (blank lines in the old code sync with blank lines in the new code). Within the small chunks, if any individual lines happen to match up, they show as code that was moved. Worse, each small chunk is presented as a modified line followed by deleted lines. It does this for all changes, morphing large changes that contain blank lines into multiple small changes separated by blank lines. Recently this became glaringly obvious (and can easily be recreated) with the following example: 1) There were three functions in a single file that implemented approximately the same operation. When the operation needed enhancement, it needed to be enhanced in 3 places. 2) I wrote a single function and parameterized it.For lexical reasons the function needed to appear in front of its usage, and so was placed in the beginning of the file. 3) Each of the three existing functions had their ~50 lines of code deleted and replaced with a single line that called the common function, passing it parameters to customize the operation. When the svn diff file was loaded into review board, the resulting diff shows dozens of changes: line modifications, deletions, code movements. When I saw the diff I first thought the change had gotten messed up because I could not recognize what had changed in the code I had just written! This occurred because every time RB sees a blank line it thinks the comparison of the two files is back in sync, so it tries to present the previous 3-10 line chunk of contiguous code as [line modifications, deletions, and movements]. If it were possible to tell code review to NOT CONSIDER BLANK LINES RELEVANT WHEN COMPARING OLD CODE TO NEW CODE, then it would show the diff for this change as a large insertion (the new, parameterized function), followed by three sections of code, each with a single line that was modified and ~50 lines deleted. Other difference engines use this approach. For example, comparing these same two (old,new) files, WinMerge shows 4 code sections changed: one insertion followed by 3 deletions. Since the primary purpose of doing code reviews is to have someone else look at your code changes, in the hopes that they will discover a latent bug that you have missed, presentation of the code changes is of paramount importance. The algorithm ReviewBoard uses obfuscates the changes because of it considers blank lines relevant when identifying code chunk boundaries. If the blank lines were ignored, then changes would be identified at the largest grouping. The most recent ReviewBoard fixed this problem for identifying chunks of code that have moved. Please create an example like I described and see what a mess the difference looks like. I think it would greatly improve Review Board if the algorithm were changed to ignore blank lines (or at least allow it as an option). Thanks, Don -- 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: Problems uploading diffs of modified files
Hello, IT'S REALLY WORKING! :) thank you Christian for your hint that the problem might be the svn authorization. there were several problems according to the svn user and his permissions. I will explain it in detail because maybe it will help anybody else too: First of all I didn't realize that the used pgp key (id_rsa) is associated to a dedicated reviewboard user called "reviewboard". That was my first mistake. I thought the key is associated to the user www-data. A talk with our svn administrator helped a lot. The second problem was related to the permissions of the id_rsa file. It is necessary that the file belongs to www-data. On the other hand also the user reviewboard needs read permission on that file, so I added the user reviewboard to the group www-data. additionally you need read permission for groups (chmod g+x id_rsa). That did the trick! Hint: my id_rsa file had read permission for all (user, group, other). That is not a good idea, because ssh rejects any key file which has read permission for other users, i.e. only user and group read permissions are allowed! Thanks for your help guys! another happy reviewboard user is born. :) regards, christian -- 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: http 500 internal server error reviewboard
I've not used webhooks myself, but based on the stack trace, it appears that you've turned them on, and the attempt to invoke a hook is failing. So go look in your configuration, and either fix your webhook configuration, or disable them? Eric. On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:43:01 PM UTC-7, Vipul Singh wrote: > > hello > i am getting http 500 internal error whenever i try to publish a new > review request. my reviewboard is running on CentOs 7. > Here is my log file :- > > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923283 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] > ERROR:root:Exception thrown for user vipul at > http://10.31.227.139/api/review-requests/25/draft/ > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923330 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923335 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] [Errno 111] Connection refused> > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923338 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] Traceback (most > recent call last): > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923341 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py", line 112, > in get_response > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923344 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] response = > wrapped_callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923347 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/cache.py", line > 52, in _wrapped_view_func > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923351 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] response = > view_func(request, *args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923354 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/views/decorators/vary.py", line > 19, in inner_func > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923357 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] response = > func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923360 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", line > 196, in __call__ > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923363 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] request, > method, view, api_format=api_format, *args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923366 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/mixins/api_tokens.py", > > line 65, in call_method_view > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923369 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view(request, *args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923372 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/resources/base.py", line > 464, in put > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923375 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > self.update(request, *args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923378 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line 122, > in _call > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923381 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923383 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/decorators.py", line > 139, in _check > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923386 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923389 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line 122, > in _call > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923392 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923408 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line 143, > in _checklogin > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923413 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923416 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line 122, > in _call > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923419 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923422 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line 122, > in _call > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923425 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923428 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/webapi/decorators.py", line 307, > in _validate > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923431 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] return > view_func(*args, **new_kwargs) > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923434 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/webapi/resources/review_request_draft.py", > > line 493, in update > [Mon Sep 26 20:01:16.923437 2016] [:error] [pid 12652] &
Re: Problems uploading diffs of modified files
Hello David,
first of all sorry for my delayed answer...
Well, I inserted the name of the repository and clicked the checkbox "show
repository". I used the path to the root of the repository (I know that is
important). The repository type is Subversion.
I chose "None - Custom Repository" as Hosting Service, no BugTracker and
Access Control as "publicly accessible".
I didn't change anything under "advanced settings" or "internal state"
now to the interesting part:
I didn't enter any user or password because our repository works with pgp
keys. therefore I copied the private key to [rb root]/data/.ssh/id_rsa.
this seems to work because I could create the repository within the webGui.
without that key or with wrong permissions (user www-data!) of that key
file I was not able to enter the repository at all.
see directory permissions:
*drwxr-xr-x 2 www-data root 4096 Sep 15 08:19 .drwxr-xr-x 4 www-data
root 4096 Sep 15 08:20 ..-rw--- 1 www-data root 1687 Sep 15
08:18 id_rsa-rw-r--r-- 1 www-data www-data 395 Sep 15 08:19 known_hosts*
I hope you can use this information...
Thanks for your help!
regards, Christian Mueller
Am Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 16:34:31 UTC+2 schrieb Christian Mueller:
>
> Hello,
>
> I set up my review board yesterday and until now I am not able to add a
> review of modified files to the review board. The tool "rbt post" works for
> complete new files but not for already existing files which are only
> modified.
> I just called: $rbt post -d
>
> First of all some information about my software and system used:
> ReviewBoard 2.5.6.1
> RBTools: 0.7.6
> Python: 2.7.9
> OS: Linux debian-8.1 64 bit (Virtual Machine)
>
>
> So far I managed to add a repository to the review board, so the RSA key
> seems to be fine. I can also login into the review board (command line: rbt
> login) and in the webgui, so the login information is correct as well.
> I always get the error Authorization failed, but I am not sure which
> Authorization is concerned. My guess is that something in the HTTP POST
> request doesn't work?!
>
>
> >>> RBTools 0.7.6
> >>> Python 2.7.9 (default, Mar 1 2015, 12:57:24)
> [GCC 4.9.2]
> >>> Running on Linux-3.16.0-4-amd64-x86_64-with-debian-8.1
> >>> Home = /home/cmul
> >>> Current directory = /home/cmul/dev/svn/anpr_config_reviewboard_test
> >>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
> >>> Running: diff --version
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive --version -q
> >>> repository info: Path: svn+ssh://svnu...@svn.efkon.com/anprconfig,
> Base path: /trunk, Supports changesets: False
> >>> Making HTTP GET request to http://10.1.19.20/api/
> >>> Making HTTP GET request to http://
> 10.1.19.20/api/repositories/?tool=Subversion
> >>> Cached response for HTTP GET http://
> 10.1.19.20/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: svn+ssh://svnu...@svn.efkon.com/anprconfig,
> Base path: /trunk, Supports changesets: False
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive status -q --ignore-externals README.txt
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry
> -r BASE README.txt
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry
> -r BASE README.txt --no-diff-deleted
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
> >>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
> >>> Making HTTP GET request to http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/
> >>> Cached response for HTTP GET http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/
> expired and was modified
> >>> Making HTTP POST request to http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/
> >>> Got API Error 224 (HTTP code 400): Authorization failed
> >>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'err': {u'msg': u'Authorization
> failed', u'code': 224}}
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/local/bin/rbt", line 9, in
> load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.6', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
> File
> "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.7.6-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/main.py"
> , line 133, in main
> comm
Problems uploading diffs of modified files
Hello,
I set up my review board yesterday and until now I am not able to add a
review of modified files to the review board. The tool "rbt post" works for
complete new files but not for already existing files which are only
modified.
I just called: $rbt post -d
First of all some information about my software and system used:
ReviewBoard 2.5.6.1
RBTools: 0.7.6
Python: 2.7.9
OS: Linux debian-8.1 64 bit (Virtual Machine)
So far I managed to add a repository to the review board, so the RSA key
seems to be fine. I can also login into the review board (command line: rbt
login) and in the webgui, so the login information is correct as well.
I always get the error Authorization failed, but I am not sure which
Authorization is concerned. My guess is that something in the HTTP POST
request doesn't work?!
>>> RBTools 0.7.6
>>> Python 2.7.9 (default, Mar 1 2015, 12:57:24)
[GCC 4.9.2]
>>> Running on Linux-3.16.0-4-amd64-x86_64-with-debian-8.1
>>> Home = /home/cmul
>>> Current directory = /home/cmul/dev/svn/anpr_config_reviewboard_test
>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>>> Running: diff --version
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive --version -q
>>> repository info: Path: svn+ssh://svnu...@svn.efkon.com/anprconfig, Base
path: /trunk, Supports changesets: False
>>> Making HTTP GET request to http://10.1.19.20/api/
>>> Making HTTP GET request to http:
//10.1.19.20/api/repositories/?tool=Subversion
>>> Cached response for HTTP GET
>>> http://10.1.19.20/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: svn+ssh://svnu...@svn.efkon.com/anprconfig, Base
path: /trunk, Supports changesets: False
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive status -q --ignore-externals README.txt
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry -r
BASE README.txt
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry -r
BASE README.txt --no-diff-deleted
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info README.txt
>>> Making HTTP GET request to http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/
>>> Cached response for HTTP GET http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/
expired and was modified
>>> Making HTTP POST request to http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/
>>> Got API Error 224 (HTTP code 400): Authorization failed
>>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'err': {u'msg': u'Authorization failed',
u'code': 224}}
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/bin/rbt", line 9, in
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.6', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.7.6-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/main.py"
, line 133, in main
command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.7.6-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/__init__.py"
, line 629, in run_from_argv
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.7.6-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py"
, line 756, in main
(msg_prefix, e))
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error validating diff
Authorization failed (HTTP 400, API Error 224)
I inserted some debug output in the file
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.7.6-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py"
and
all information looks correct but nevertheless an exception is thrown.
Debug variables output:
diff_validator: ValidateDiffResource(transport=http://10.1.19.20', cookie_file=u'/home/cmul/.rbtools-cookies', agent=
'RBTools/0.7.6')>, payload={u'stat': u'ok', u'links': {u'self': {u'href': u
'http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/', u'method': u'GET'}, u'create': {u
'href': u'http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/', u'method': u'POST'}}},
url=u'http://10.1.19.20/api/validation/diffs/', token=None)
repository: anprconfig
parent_diff: None
base_dir: anprconfig
diff: Index: /trunk/README.txt
The reviewboard log file or any other log (apache2/error.log, syslog,
postgresql-log) didn't give any valuable information.
Hopefully somebody can help because I really liked the old reviewboard
(1.7) we used until
Re: "You are not logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)"
Fails in the same way:
cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$ rbt post --debug --diff-filename=diff.txt
>>> RBTools 0.7.6
>>> Python 2.7.3 (default, Jun 22 2015, 19:33:41)
[GCC 4.6.3]
>>> Running on Linux-3.2.0-109-generic-x86_64-with-Ubuntu-12.04-precise
>>> Home = /home/cwestin
>>> Current directory = /home/cwestin/hg/dev1
>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>>> Command exited with rc 1: ['svn', '--non-interactive', u'info']
svn: '.' is not a working copy
---
>>> Checking for a Git repository...
>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir
>>> Command exited with rc 128: ['git', 'rev-parse', '--git-dir']
fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
---
>>> Checking for a Mercurial repository...
>>> Running: hg root
>>> Running: hg showconfig
>>> Running: hg svn info
>>> Command exited with rc 255: [u'hg', u'svn', u'info']
hg: unknown command 'svn'
Mercurial Distributed SCM
basic commands:
addadd the specified files on the next commit
annotate show changeset information by line for each file
clone make a copy of an existing repository
commit commit the specified files or all outstanding changes
diff diff repository (or selected files)
export dump the header and diffs for one or more changesets
forget forget the specified files on the next commit
init create a new repository in the given directory
logshow revision history of entire repository or files
merge merge working directory with another revision
pull pull changes from the specified source
push push changes to the specified destination
remove remove the specified files on the next commit
serve start stand-alone webserver
status show changed files in the working directory
summarysummarize working directory state
update update working directory (or switch revisions)
use "hg help" for the full list of commands or "hg -v" for details
---
>>> Using candidate path u'default': u'ssh://mapr@10.250.1.5/releases/trunk'
>>> repository info: Path: ssh://mapr@10.250.1.5/releases/trunk, Base path:
, Supports changesets: False
>>> Making HTTP GET request to http://reviewboard.corp.maprtech.com/api/
>>> Making HTTP GET request to
http://reviewboard.corp.maprtech.com/api/info/
>>> Making HTTP GET request to
http://reviewboard.corp.maprtech.com/api/review-requests/?only-links=create&only-fields=
>>> Making HTTP POST request to
http://reviewboard.corp.maprtech.com/api/review-requests/
Please log in to the Review Board server at reviewboard.corp.maprtech.com.
Username: cwestin
Password:
>>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 401): You are not logged in
>>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'err': {u'msg': u'You are not logged
in', u'code': 103}}
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/bin/rbt", line 9, in
load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.6', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/main.py",
line 133, in main
command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
File
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/__init__.py", line
629, in run_from_argv
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py",
line 805, in main
base_dir=base_dir)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py",
line 426, in post_request
raise CommandError('Error creating review request: %s' % e)
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error creating review request: You are not
logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)
cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond
wrote:
>
> Can you try without --username, and instead let RBTools prompt for one?
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:10 PM, 'Chris Westin' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> I didn't notice any file being created, but here's what came out on
>> stdout/stderr:
>>
>> cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$ rbt post --username cwestin --debug
>> --diff-filename=diff.txt
>> >>> RBTools 0.7.6
>> >>> Python 2.7.3 (default, Jun 22 2015, 19:33:41)
>
Re: "You are not logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)"
I didn't notice any file being created, but here's what came out on
stdout/stderr:
cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$ rbt post --username cwestin --debug
--diff-filename=diff.txt
>>> RBTools 0.7.6
>>> Python 2.7.3 (default, Jun 22 2015, 19:33:41)
[GCC 4.6.3]
>>> Running on Linux-3.2.0-109-generic-x86_64-with-Ubuntu-12.04-precise
>>> Home = /home/cwestin
>>> Current directory = /home/cwestin/hg/dev1
>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>>> Running: svn --non-interactive info
>>> Command exited with rc 1: ['svn', '--non-interactive', u'info']
svn: '.' is not a working copy
---
>>> Checking for a Git repository...
>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir
>>> Command exited with rc 128: ['git', 'rev-parse', '--git-dir']
fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
---
>>> Checking for a Mercurial repository...
>>> Running: hg root
>>> Running: hg showconfig
>>> Running: hg svn info
>>> Command exited with rc 255: [u'hg', u'svn', u'info']
hg: unknown command 'svn'
Mercurial Distributed SCM
basic commands:
addadd the specified files on the next commit
annotate show changeset information by line for each file
clone make a copy of an existing repository
commit commit the specified files or all outstanding changes
diff diff repository (or selected files)
export dump the header and diffs for one or more changesets
forget forget the specified files on the next commit
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py",
line 805, in main
base_dir=base_dir)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py",
line 426, in post_request
raise CommandError('Error creating review request: %s' % e)
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error creating review request: You are not
logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)
cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$ ls
build_fileclient/ gradlew*
mapr-core-internal-dist/
build_fileserver/ gradlew.bat maprstat-build-wrapper/
exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py",
line 805, in main
base_dir=base_dir)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py",
line 426, in post_request
raise CommandError('Error creating review request: %s' % e)
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error creating review request: You are not
logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)
cwestin@qa-node66:~/hg/dev1$
It's picking up the location of rb from a .reviewboardrc file in the root
of the hg repo, which contains
REVIEWBOARD_URL = "http://reviewboard.corp.maprtech.com";
REPOSITORY = "MapR Trunk Repo"
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond
wrote:
>
> You can pass --debug to the RBTools command line.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:57 AM, 'Chris Westin' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> RBTools 0.7.6.
>>
>> How do I produce a debug log?
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 5:13:26 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you supply a debug log as well? Having more data would help here.
>>>
>>> Also, what version of Review Board are you running?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016, 'Chris Westin' via reviewboard <
>>> revie...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, no resolution to this? I'm seeing the exact same thing on a fresh
>>>> install on Ubuntu. Everything is stock.
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 5:55:07 AM UTC-8, Gauthier Segay
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It might help some encountering this issue, I worked around using the
>>>>> .rbtools-cookies files
>>>>>
>>>>> On windows 2003 this file is in:
>>>>>
>>>>> C:\Documents and Settings\THEUSER\Application Data for THEUSER
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> c:\windows\system32 for SYSTEM account
>>>>>
>>>>> To get a valid cookie, I logged in reviewboard using the account I
>>>>> intend to use
Re: "You are not logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)"
RBTools 0.7.6.
How do I produce a debug log?
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 5:13:26 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Can you supply a debug log as well? Having more data would help here.
>
> Also, what version of Review Board are you running?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016, 'Chris Westin' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> So, no resolution to this? I'm seeing the exact same thing on a fresh
>> install on Ubuntu. Everything is stock.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 5:55:07 AM UTC-8, Gauthier Segay wrote:
>>>
>>> It might help some encountering this issue, I worked around using the
>>> .rbtools-cookies files
>>>
>>> On windows 2003 this file is in:
>>>
>>> C:\Documents and Settings\THEUSER\Application Data for THEUSER
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> c:\windows\system32 for SYSTEM account
>>>
>>> To get a valid cookie, I logged in reviewboard using the account I
>>> intend to use with "rbtools post" and got the value of rbsessionid to
>>> put in above file.
>>>
>>> I tried to debug rbtools locally but only have python 3 on my dev
>>> machine so I couldn't get it to work properly to the stage I would get
>>> this:
>>>
>>> >>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 401): You are not logged in
>>> >>> Error data: {'stat': 'fail', 'err': {'msg': 'You are not logged in',
>>> 'code': 103}}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Gauthier Segay
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hello, I'm encountering same issue, just dumping all the configuration
>>> > info and current output of rbt post.
>>> >
>>> > The issues started happening after a reviewboard machine reboot (and
>>> > ip change), I don't know how I used to get it working.
>>> >
>>> > Reviews are posted from a windows machine hosting the svn server.
>>> >
>>> > I can login on the site and create reviews with the login used in this
>>> > command line.
>>> >
>>> > Please suggest what I can try.
>>> >
>>> > ===
>>> > E:\repositories\dev\hooks>rbt post
>>> > --server=http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local
>>> > --repository-url=svn://192.168.1.7/dev --debug --publish
>>> > --username svn --password thepassword --submit-as svn
>>> > --target-groups uplanreviewers --summary
>>> > automatic_summary_for_revision_15039 --description-file
>>> > E:\repositories\dev\hooks\logs\15039svncommitlog.txt
>>> > 15038:15039
>>> 1>>E:\repositories\dev\hooks\logs\15039post-commit-review.log
>>> >>>> RBTools 0.7.1
>>> >>>> Python 2.7 (r27:82525, Jul 4 2010, 09:01:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
>>> (Intel)]
>>> >>>> Running on Windows-2003Server-5.2.3790-SP2
>>> >>>> Home = C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.LCG\Application Data
>>> >>>> Current directory = E:\repositories\dev\hooks
>>> >>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
>>> >>>> Running: svn info svn://192.168.1.7/dev --non-interactive
>>> >>>> Running: diff --version
>>> >>>> repository info: Path: svn://192.168.1.7/dev, Base path: /,
>>> Supports changesets: False
>>> >>>> Making HTTP GET request to http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local/api/
>>> >>>> Making HTTP GET request to
>>> http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local/api/repositories/
>>> >>>> Running: svn log -r 15038 -l 1 --xml svn://192.168.1.7/dev
>>> >>>> Running: svn log -r 15039 -l 1 --xml svn://192.168.1.7/dev
>>> >>>> Running: svn info svn://192.168.1.7/dev --non-interactive
>>> >>>> Running: diff --version
>>> >>>> repository info: Path: svn://192.168.1.7/dev, Base path: /,
>>> Supports changesets: False
>>> >>>> Running: svn status --ignore-externals
>>> >>>> Running: svn diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry svn://
>>> 192.168.1.7/dev/@15038 svn://192.168.1.7/dev/@15039
>>> >>>> Running: svn diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry svn://
>>> 192.
Re: "You are not logged in (HTTP 401, API Error 103)"
So, no resolution to this? I'm seeing the exact same thing on a fresh
install on Ubuntu. Everything is stock.
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 5:55:07 AM UTC-8, Gauthier Segay wrote:
>
> It might help some encountering this issue, I worked around using the
> .rbtools-cookies files
>
> On windows 2003 this file is in:
>
> C:\Documents and Settings\THEUSER\Application Data for THEUSER
>
> and
>
> c:\windows\system32 for SYSTEM account
>
> To get a valid cookie, I logged in reviewboard using the account I
> intend to use with "rbtools post" and got the value of rbsessionid to
> put in above file.
>
> I tried to debug rbtools locally but only have python 3 on my dev
> machine so I couldn't get it to work properly to the stage I would get
> this:
>
> >>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 401): You are not logged in
> >>> Error data: {'stat': 'fail', 'err': {'msg': 'You are not logged in',
> 'code': 103}}
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Gauthier Segay
> > wrote:
> > Hello, I'm encountering same issue, just dumping all the configuration
> > info and current output of rbt post.
> >
> > The issues started happening after a reviewboard machine reboot (and
> > ip change), I don't know how I used to get it working.
> >
> > Reviews are posted from a windows machine hosting the svn server.
> >
> > I can login on the site and create reviews with the login used in this
> > command line.
> >
> > Please suggest what I can try.
> >
> > ===
> > E:\repositories\dev\hooks>rbt post
> > --server=http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local
> > --repository-url=svn://192.168.1.7/dev --debug --publish
> > --username svn --password thepassword --submit-as svn
> > --target-groups uplanreviewers --summary
> > automatic_summary_for_revision_15039 --description-file
> > E:\repositories\dev\hooks\logs\15039svncommitlog.txt
> > 15038:15039
> 1>>E:\repositories\dev\hooks\logs\15039post-commit-review.log
> >>>> RBTools 0.7.1
> >>>> Python 2.7 (r27:82525, Jul 4 2010, 09:01:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
> (Intel)]
> >>>> Running on Windows-2003Server-5.2.3790-SP2
> >>>> Home = C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.LCG\Application Data
> >>>> Current directory = E:\repositories\dev\hooks
> >>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...
> >>>> Running: svn info svn://192.168.1.7/dev --non-interactive
> >>>> Running: diff --version
> >>>> repository info: Path: svn://192.168.1.7/dev, Base path: /, Supports
> changesets: False
> >>>> Making HTTP GET request to http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local/api/
> >>>> Making HTTP GET request to
> http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local/api/repositories/
> >>>> Running: svn log -r 15038 -l 1 --xml svn://192.168.1.7/dev
> >>>> Running: svn log -r 15039 -l 1 --xml svn://192.168.1.7/dev
> >>>> Running: svn info svn://192.168.1.7/dev --non-interactive
> >>>> Running: diff --version
> >>>> repository info: Path: svn://192.168.1.7/dev, Base path: /, Supports
> changesets: False
> >>>> Running: svn status --ignore-externals
> >>>> Running: svn diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry svn://
> 192.168.1.7/dev/@15038 svn://192.168.1.7/dev/@15039
> >>>> Running: svn diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry svn://
> 192.168.1.7/dev/@15038 svn://192.168.1.7/dev/@15039 --no-d
> > iff-deleted
> >>>> Making HTTP GET request to
> http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local/api/validation/diffs/
> >>>> Making HTTP POST request to
> http://reviewboard.lcgentoo.local/api/validation/diffs/
> >>>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 401): You are not logged in
> >>>> Error data: {'stat': 'fail', 'err': {'msg': 'You are not logged in',
> 'code': 103}}
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File "C:\Python27\Scripts\rbt-script.py", line 9, in
> > load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.1', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
> > File
> "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.7.1-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\main.py",
>
>
> > line 133, in main
> > command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
> > File
> "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.7.1-py2.7.egg\
Re: Attempted to switch my server to HTTPS, and rbt setup-repo reports SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE
Thanks so much for the reply On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Christian Hammond wrote: > Hi Eric, > > RBTools itself isn't handling SSL/TLS, and has no awareness of the various > protocols/ciphers. We use Python's urllib2 to establish the connections, > and that's going through the ssl module. I don't have a good answer on next > steps here, but it's not an issue that'll be specific to RBTools or will > involve our codebase, most likely. > At least as far as "rbt" is concerned, a "verbose" option, or a "debug" option might be useful. For example, when rbt is using ssl, what version of OPENSSL is getting invoked? In any case, I did get a bunch further with this. I failed to note a critical piece of information in my original post - I'm running on a Mac (10.11.X). There seem to be three scenarios: - Install ReviewBoard from the RBTools.pkg - Install ReviewBoard using easy_install or pip. - Install ReviewBoard from a package manager (MacPorts) The three different scenarios play out as follows: Install from RBTools.pkg - this installs an "rbt" shell item in /usr/local/bin, puts RBTools in the site-packages folder for the OS-installed versions of Python (2.6 & 2.7) and puts a shebang (#!) line at the beginning that binds to one of the OS installed versions (2.6, for me). These installs do not pick up alternate versions of installed software, such as MacPorts or HomeBrew. Install from easy_install - installs rbt to the OS's version of Python. Again, ignores MacPorts & HomeBrew. When I installed via pip, this didn't create a shell "rbt" install in my MacPorts "bin" folder (/opt/local/bin). Currently MacPorts is behind by a few versions (0.4.3). Unfortunately, when the install binds to one of the OS versions of Python, it ends up using the OS provided version of OpenSSL. According to one of my co-workers, Apple is no longer supporting openssl, so it won't be progressing past 0.9.8. That version of openssl is stuck at TLS 1 support. Conclusions: - This seems to be an Apple bug - anything that installs and uses the OS available versions of Python will be hamstrung to using an older and less secure version of the "ssl" package, due to its implementation calling out to older branches of openssl. - This could possibly be an RBTools install issue - would be nice if the installer could detect alternate Pythons on the machine (HomeBrew / MacPorts), and install with those versions of Python rather than the system packages - Possibly a problem with the pip install? When I did the pip install, that did not generate an "rbt" shell script in the right place. Obviously, I can make my own script to call it, but still annoying. - This could possibly be an issue with MacPorts - perhaps I can submit a package to update RBTools MacPorts implementation. Annoying and complicated issue. Thanks for your response. Eric. > > Christian > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016, eric via reviewboard < > reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Some follow-on information. >> >> I grabbed my Apache configuration for the server from >> https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/ >> Initially, I tried the "Modern" configuration. >> >> When I switch to the "Intermediate" configuration, it starts working. >> >> I updated my logging on the server to track which protocol & cipher are >> being used, and I see this when I connect from the browser: >> >> TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 >> >> (That's good) >> >> >> ... but I see this if I run "rbt setup-repo" or "rbt post" >> >> TLSv1 DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA >> >> >> Why is it that rbt uses the older protocol & cipher? I've been advised to >> go run wireshark, and maybe that will provide more insight. >> >> >> Eric. >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:02:28 AM UTC-7, er...@tibco.com wrote: >>> >>> The specific, full message is this: >>> >>> ERROR: Could not reach the Review Board server at : SSL: >>> SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE] sslv3 alert handshake failure (_ssl.c:590) >>> >>> >>> This is not a self-signed certificate. My web browsers all work fine >>> when I connect to the site. When I do this: >>> >>> >>> > python >>> >>> > import ssl >>> >>> > ssl.OPENSSL_VERSION >>> >>> >>> 'OpenSSL 1.0.2h 3 May 2016' >>> >>> >>> I'm sort of at a loss for how
Re: Attempted to switch my server to HTTPS, and rbt setup-repo reports SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE
Some follow-on information. I grabbed my Apache configuration for the server from https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/ Initially, I tried the "Modern" configuration. When I switch to the "Intermediate" configuration, it starts working. I updated my logging on the server to track which protocol & cipher are being used, and I see this when I connect from the browser: TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (That's good) ... but I see this if I run "rbt setup-repo" or "rbt post" TLSv1 DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA Why is it that rbt uses the older protocol & cipher? I've been advised to go run wireshark, and maybe that will provide more insight. Eric. On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:02:28 AM UTC-7, er...@tibco.com wrote: > > The specific, full message is this: > > ERROR: Could not reach the Review Board server at : SSL: > SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE] sslv3 alert handshake failure (_ssl.c:590) > > > This is not a self-signed certificate. My web browsers all work fine when > I connect to the site. When I do this: > > > > python > > > import ssl > > > ssl.OPENSSL_VERSION > > >>> 'OpenSSL 1.0.2h 3 May 2016' > > > I'm sort of at a loss for how to troubleshoot this. I turn on all the > debugging and logging I can on the server, and I'm not seeing any > additional information. > > > It doesn't look like rbt setup-repo takes any "verbose" options that will > clarify the problem. > > > Suggestions? > > > Thanks! > > > Eric. > -- 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.
Attempted to switch my server to HTTPS, and rbt setup-repo reports SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE
The specific, full message is this: ERROR: Could not reach the Review Board server at : SSL: SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE] sslv3 alert handshake failure (_ssl.c:590) This is not a self-signed certificate. My web browsers all work fine when I connect to the site. When I do this: > python > import ssl > ssl.OPENSSL_VERSION >>> 'OpenSSL 1.0.2h 3 May 2016' I'm sort of at a loss for how to troubleshoot this. I turn on all the debugging and logging I can on the server, and I'm not seeing any additional information. It doesn't look like rbt setup-repo takes any "verbose" options that will clarify the problem. Suggestions? Thanks! Eric. -- 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: Can't find diff revision selector
Hey Christian, thank you for your fast reply, it was quite helpful! Regards, Walder On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:29:09 PM UTC+2, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Hi Walder, > > I think there's some confusion about what the slider is for. I'll explain. > > When you first create a review request with a diff, that diff is stored > along with the review request as revision 1. Once you get reviews from > peers and make changes, you'll eventually update that review request with a > new diff: revision 2. Next would be 3, and so on. > > The revision slider makes it easy to select which diff revision (not > committed revision) you want to view, and makes it easy to view an > interdiff between them (showing the differences between two versions of > your change, to help with the review process). > > This all assumes you're using a pre-commit model, where you post changes > for review and gain approval *before* it goes into the codebase. This is > the recommended way of doing code review, as it ensures that bugs don't > slip in and others aren't building upon potentially fragile foundations. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond > President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/> > Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:14 AM, 'Walder Röhrl' via reviewboard < > revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> I'm using Version 2.5.6.1 of Review Board, but I can't find the diff >> revision selector introduced in 2.0. In my diff viewer it's simply not >> there. Do I need to enable this feature somehow? I could't find anything in >> the settings. >> >> Also, I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to be used: I would like to >> select specific revisions when creating a review request. This is not >> possible using the selector in the webGUI, right? >> >> Cheers, >> Walder >> >> -- >> 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: error when svn root is not project root
Hey, I stumbled across this as well. Maybe you could add a line to the documentation? Cheers, Walder On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 at 11:29:36 PM UTC+2, empt...@gmail.com wrote: > > Interesting... so apparently I was making this too complicated... I was > worried that because my users don't have read access to the root that this > wouldn't work, but it seems to. Thanks! > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:18:22 PM UTC-5, Christian Hammond wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Even if your users are checking out from a subdirectory, you need to >> configure Review Board to have one entry for the root of the repository. >> RBTools will compare against the Repository Root field, figure out the >> relative URL they’re using from there, and look up the correct URL on >> Review Board. >> >> What happens if you try that? >> >> Christian >> >> -- >> Christian Hammond - chri...@beanbaginc.com >> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org >> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com >> >> On August 5, 2014 at 2:15:49 PM, empt...@gmail.com (empt...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> >> ok, so I have a setup where my company's root svn is different from the >> projects that people checkout. In otherwords, each project is setup as only >> a folder in svn. >> >> so svn info shows: >> URL: https://url.org/svn/root/projectname >> Relative URL: ^/projectname >> Repository Root: https://url.org/svn/root >> >> The repo is setup in ReviewBoard as https://url.org/svn/root/projectname >> >> Anytime I run rbt post, I get: >> >> The file was not found in the repository. (HTTP 400, API Error 207) >> >> I AM able to get diffs to post automatically using the post-review >> version that comes bundled with debian testing by running something like: >> >> post-review --repository-url=https://url.org/svn/root/projectname >> --diff-filename=/tmp/manualdiff >> <https://url.org/svn/root/projectname--diff-filename=/tmp/manualdiff> >> >> But obviously, this is hackish and post-review is deprecated, from my >> understanding. >> >> If I insert a logging line into get_file in pysvn.py per another post >> here, I see something like the following in the logs: >> >> - repopath = "https://url.org/svn/root/projectname";, path = >> "/projectname/file.py", revision = "18376" >> >> >> >> Which I assume why this is not working is because of the screwy path root >> problem and the duplicate projectname above. >> >> So, my question... what is the best way to make this work for automatic >> diff uploads using rbt? Even if I have to hardcode something hackish, I >> would rather have your advice on where is the best place to do so. Any >> help appreciated. >> -- >> 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...@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.
Can't find diff revision selector
Hey, I'm using Version 2.5.6.1 of Review Board, but I can't find the diff revision selector introduced in 2.0. In my diff viewer it's simply not there. Do I need to enable this feature somehow? I could't find anything in the settings. Also, I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to be used: I would like to select specific revisions when creating a review request. This is not possible using the selector in the webGUI, right? Cheers, Walder -- 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
>> 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 >>> > 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: reviewboard 2.5.5 don't send email on review request
I change email server to gmail.com. Enother error in log: - Error sending e-mail notification with subject 'Review Request 37: TEST GMAIL' on behalf of 'Александр *** ' to 'Александр * ,Ирина ** ,Роман ** ,Александр *** ,Андрей ** ,Алексей *** ' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.6.1-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/notifications/email.py", line 691, in send_review_mail message.send() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.6.11-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/message.py", line 276, in send return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self]) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.6.11-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", line 94, in send_messages sent = self._send(message) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.6.11-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", line 110, in _send self.connection.sendmail(from_email, recipients, message.as_bytes()) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/smtplib.py", line 746, in sendmail raise SMTPDataError(code, resp) SMTPDataError: (550, '5.7.1 Client does not have permissions to send as this sender') вторник, 21 июня 2016 г., 12:01:17 UTC+3 пользователь Александр Нечаев написал: > > Email work nice on previous version of Reviewboard with the same mail > server. When I install reviewboard 2.5.5 it's not work. Upgrade to latest > version of reviewboard don't help. > > пятница, 3 июня 2016 г., 15:29:46 UTC+3 пользователь Александр Нечаев > написал: >> >> reviewboard 2.5.5 >> OS: OpenSuse13.1 >> django-evolution: 0.7.6 >> python 2.7.6 >> PostgreSQL 9.2.14 >> >> when i create new review request on a review group, or to person, email >> message not sent, ERROR in log: >> >> - Error sending e-mail notification with subject 'Review Request 12: >> NFO.RNB.TEST12' on behalf of 'А* Н** ' to 'А**** >> С ,Р* М** ,А* К* >> ,Ал*** З ,И Б* >> ,А Н*** ' >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File >> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.6-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/notifications/email.py", >> line 691, in send_review_mail >> message.send() >> File >> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.6.11-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/message.py", >> line 276, in send >> return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self]) >> File >> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.6.11-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", >> line 94, in send_messages >> sent = self._send(message) >> File >> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.6.11-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py", >> line 110, in _send >> self.connection.sendmail(from_email, recipients, message.as_bytes()) >> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/smtplib.py", line 746, in sendmail >> raise SMTPDataError(code, resp) >> SMTPDataError: (550, '5.7.1 Missing purported responsible address') >> >> But when i send test message in "Email TLS Authentication" with "Send a test >> e-mail after saving", message arrives. >> >> >> -- 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
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 > 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
>>> 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/revi
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 > 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: A weird unicode puzzle after upgrade from 2.0.20 to 2.5.4
I have finally re-run my entire automated migration process from start to finish. After running condensediffs *before* the upgrade, I was then able to run condensediffs after the upgrade as well, all without any warnings or errors. Perhaps you should add a step to the upgrade guide, advising Administrators to rebuild their search index, and also condense diffs? So I seem to have found a work-around to the problem - in case anyone else runs into it. Eric. On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 1:40:06 PM UTC-7, er...@tibco.com wrote: > > I re-ran the migration, and before doing anything, set the DEBUG flag to > True before fetching any diffs. > > I can confirm that it fails on *every* diff, not just random ones here and > there. > > Running with DEBUG = False, the warning doesn't throw an exception, but I > do see an entry in the log: > WARNING:py.warnings:/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py:124: > > Warning: Invalid utf8 character string: '81FE48' > > After I've viewed the diffs of a review request once, the warnings stop > appearing (consistent with the data being migrated to compressed form.). > Switching back to DEBUG = True, and I no longer see failures for the review > request diffs that I looked at while DEBUG = False > > Trying a different approach, I ran "rb-site manage __ -- > condensediffs", and that also generated the same warnings. Here's a sample: > > WARNING:py.warnings:/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py:124: > > Warning: Invalid utf8 character string: 'D76700' > > return self.cursor.execute(query, args) > > > WARNING:py.warnings:/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py:124: > > Warning: Invalid utf8 character string: 'A9C813' > > return self.cursor.execute(query, args) > > > ... > > > This generated 169000+ lines of output, corresponding to 56435 individual > warning messages out of a total of 76032 diff files condensed. > > > This gave me an idea. > > > I ran "rb-site ... condensediffs" before the upgrade, then once again > after the upgrade. > > > Problem went away. > > > Weird. Do you want me to try to find out more, and if so, what? > > > Eric. > > > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 1:49:53 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote: >> >> Hi Eric, >> >> Hmm, we'll need to look into that. Is there a way you'd be able to send >> us the diff for that? (I can help you find it.) We will need a copy in >> order to diagnose this. We can sign an NDA for it. >> >> Christian >> >> >> On Friday, May 13, 2016, eric via reviewboard >> wrote: >> >>> After I migrated my server to 2.5.4, I'm seeing a weird error. I >>> restarted both memcached and apache2, and then browse to a specific review >>> request. >>> >>> Then I click on the "Diff" tab. (After I turned on DEBUG = True in the >>> settings_local.py file) I see this instead of diffs. >>> >>> Traceback (most recent call last): >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py", >>> >>> line 275, in get >>> response = renderer.render_to_response(request) >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >>> >>> line 56, in render_to_response >>> return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request)) >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >>> >>> line 74, in render_to_string >>> large_data=True) >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", >>> >>> line 295, in cache_memoize >>> compress_large_data)) >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", >>> >>> line 249, in cache_memoize_iter >>> items = items_or_callable() >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", >>> >>> line 292, in >>> lambda: [lookup_callable()], >>> File >>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >>> >>> line 73,
Re: A weird unicode puzzle after upgrade from 2.0.20 to 2.5.4
I re-ran the migration, and before doing anything, set the DEBUG flag to True before fetching any diffs. I can confirm that it fails on *every* diff, not just random ones here and there. Running with DEBUG = False, the warning doesn't throw an exception, but I do see an entry in the log: WARNING:py.warnings:/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py:124: Warning: Invalid utf8 character string: '81FE48' After I've viewed the diffs of a review request once, the warnings stop appearing (consistent with the data being migrated to compressed form.). Switching back to DEBUG = True, and I no longer see failures for the review request diffs that I looked at while DEBUG = False Trying a different approach, I ran "rb-site manage __ -- condensediffs", and that also generated the same warnings. Here's a sample: WARNING:py.warnings:/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py:124: Warning: Invalid utf8 character string: 'D76700' return self.cursor.execute(query, args) WARNING:py.warnings:/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py:124: Warning: Invalid utf8 character string: 'A9C813' return self.cursor.execute(query, args) ... This generated 169000+ lines of output, corresponding to 56435 individual warning messages out of a total of 76032 diff files condensed. This gave me an idea. I ran "rb-site ... condensediffs" before the upgrade, then once again after the upgrade. Problem went away. Weird. Do you want me to try to find out more, and if so, what? Eric. On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 1:49:53 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > Hmm, we'll need to look into that. Is there a way you'd be able to send us > the diff for that? (I can help you find it.) We will need a copy in order > to diagnose this. We can sign an NDA for it. > > Christian > > > On Friday, May 13, 2016, eric via reviewboard > wrote: > >> After I migrated my server to 2.5.4, I'm seeing a weird error. I >> restarted both memcached and apache2, and then browse to a specific review >> request. >> >> Then I click on the "Diff" tab. (After I turned on DEBUG = True in the >> settings_local.py file) I see this instead of diffs. >> >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py", >> >> line 275, in get >> response = renderer.render_to_response(request) >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >> >> line 56, in render_to_response >> return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request)) >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >> >> line 74, in render_to_string >> large_data=True) >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", >> >> line 295, in cache_memoize >> compress_large_data)) >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", >> >> line 249, in cache_memoize_iter >> items = items_or_callable() >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py", >> >> line 292, in >> lambda: [lookup_callable()], >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >> >> line 73, in >> lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request), >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py", >> >> line 87, in render_to_string_uncached >> request=request) >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py", >> >> line 429, in populate_diff_chunks >> chunks = list(generator.get_chunks()) >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", >> >> line 756, in get_chunks >> for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key): >> File >> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py", >> >> line 107, in get_chunks >> large_data=True) >> File
A weird unicode puzzle after upgrade from 2.0.20 to 2.5.4
After I migrated my server to 2.5.4, I'm seeing a weird error. I restarted
both memcached and apache2, and then browse to a specific review request.
Then I click on the "Diff" tab. (After I turned on DEBUG = True in the
settings_local.py file) I see this instead of diffs.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/views.py",
line 275, in get
response = renderer.render_to_response(request)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
line 56, in render_to_response
return HttpResponse(self.render_to_string(request))
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
line 74, in render_to_string
large_data=True)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
line 292, in
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
line 73, in
lambda: self.render_to_string_uncached(request),
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/renderers.py",
line 87, in render_to_string_uncached
request=request)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
line 429, in populate_diff_chunks
chunks = list(generator.get_chunks())
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
line 756, in get_chunks
for chunk in super(DiffChunkGenerator, self).get_chunks(cache_key):
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
line 107, in get_chunks
large_data=True)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
line 295, in cache_memoize
compress_large_data))
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
line 249, in cache_memoize_iter
items = items_or_callable()
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.9.3-py2.7.egg/djblets/cache/backend.py",
line 292, in
lambda: [lookup_callable()],
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
line 106, in
lambda: list(self.get_chunks_uncached()),
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/chunk_generator.py",
line 763, in get_chunks_uncached
new = get_patched_file(old, self.filediff, self.request)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/diffutils.py",
line 230, in get_patched_file
diff = tool.normalize_patch(filediff.diff, filediff.source_file,
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
line 218, in _get_diff
self._migrate_diff_data()
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
line 421, in _migrate_diff_data
diff_hash_is_new = self._set_diff(self.legacy_diff_hash.binary)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/models.py",
line 225, in _set_diff
RawFileDiffData.objects.get_or_create_from_data(diff)
File
"/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/managers.py",
line 345, in get_or_create_from_data
'compression': compression,
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/manager.py",
line 154, in get_or_create
return self.get_queryset().get_or_create(**kwargs)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py", line
383, in get_or_create
obj.save(force_insert=True, using=self.db)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/base.py", line
545, in save
force_update=force_update, update_fields=update_fields)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/base.py", line
573, in save_base
updated = self._save_table(raw, cls, force_insert, force_update, using,
update_fields)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models
Re: Search showing incomplete results (v. 2.5.4, just rebuilt indices)
Ugh. Me with egg on my face.
My automated script to perform the indexing, and turn on searching - turns
out I had a typo.
Eric.
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:08:04 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Just to check, is Search enabled in Settings?
>
> The auto-complete won't show results from the search index. You'll have to
> hit enter to see the results. We're changing this for 3.0 (along with
> adding on-the-fly search indexing).
>
> 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 11:07 AM, eric via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> I'm getting ready to roll out the latest ReviewBoard for my company.
>> Upgrade went smoothly. Looks like you've even fully integrated a patch I
>> submitted a while back (thanks for that!)
>>
>> While I was at it, I figured I should turn on indexing for the first time.
>>
>> After doing a:
>>
>> rb-site manage ${path_to_instance} -- rebuild_index
>>
>> After switching to view "all requests", I start typing in the search box,
>> and it doesn't match against some of the items I can see on my first page
>> of all available requests.
>>
>> In particular, I'm interested in searching for bug numbers. Sometimes my
>> users put these in the summary of a review request, and some times they put
>> it in the Bugs field. Whether or not a bug number is listed in the Bugs
>> field appears to have no affect on whether it gets properly indexed for
>> search.
>>
>> What's going on? Any tips for troubleshooting?
>>
>> Eric.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
Search showing incomplete results (v. 2.5.4, just rebuilt indices)
I'm getting ready to roll out the latest ReviewBoard for my company.
Upgrade went smoothly. Looks like you've even fully integrated a patch I
submitted a while back (thanks for that!)
While I was at it, I figured I should turn on indexing for the first time.
After doing a:
rb-site manage ${path_to_instance} -- rebuild_index
After switching to view "all requests", I start typing in the search box,
and it doesn't match against some of the items I can see on my first page
of all available requests.
In particular, I'm interested in searching for bug numbers. Sometimes my
users put these in the summary of a review request, and some times they put
it in the Bugs field. Whether or not a bug number is listed in the Bugs
field appears to have no affect on whether it gets properly indexed for
search.
What's going on? Any tips for troubleshooting?
Eric.
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
rb-site upgrade fails
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: Integrated ReviewBoard in TortoiseSVN 1.8.X
Hi Tamer, are the sources or a binary with this additional functionality anywhere available in public or can you share it with me? Or is it already integrated into the official TortoiseSVN sources? Cheers, Wolfgang Am Freitag, 9. Mai 2014 00:02:39 UTC+2 schrieb Tamer Afify: > Hi All, > > I have made few changes in TortoiseSVN 1.8.X release to allow for; > 1. Send a pre-commit review request from File Explorer menu > 2. Send a post-commit review request from Tortoise Show Logs dialog > 3. Review & Commit source in one step, that would add the review URL in > the commit log message > 4. Setup a user local .reviewboardrc configuration file from TortoiseSVN > settings dialog > > I'm new to the open source world. Is that change of any value to the > ReviewBoard community? If so how can I share source and binaries? > and maybe hopefully get a code review for my changes :) > > > -- 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 upgrade failure
All, I am trying to upgrade from 2.0.20 -> 2.5.3. I do this by taking a backup of the 2.0.20 database then importing into MySQL and then running the rb-site upgrade. However I get the following output: Updating database. This may take a while. The log output below, including warnings and errors, can be ignored unless upgrade fails. -- -- Creating tables ... There are unapplied evolutions for accounts. There are unapplied evolutions for attachments. There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer. There are unapplied evolutions for reviews. There are unapplied evolutions for webapi. Project signature has changed - an evolution is required Installing custom SQL ... Installing indexes ... Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoardPowerPack-1.4-py2.7.egg/rbpowerpack/scmtools/tfs.py:9: DeprecationWarning: django.utils.simplejson is deprecated; use json instead. CommandError: Error applying evolution: (1060, "Duplicate column name 'visibility'") ... Any ideas on why I am getting this error or how I can get more debug to help? Much appreciated Dan On Friday, 15 January 2016 19:44:43 UTC, Ben Cooksley wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Christian Hammond > wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > > You'll have a much easier time restoring from a backup. It's hard to say > how > > far it went through the evolution process, and unfortunately today it > > doesn't keep track of how far it got and what it'd have to do to > recover. > > You'd have a lot of trial and error to fix it manually. You can try it, > > though. > > > > Basically, you'll need to dump the SQL that the evolutions want to > apply, > > and go through and hand-undo each thing it did until you get back to the > > point of where it was. You'd definitely want to do a backup first, > though. > > Unfortunately people had started using it already so this was the > easiest approach :( > > Would it be possible to get a copy of a normally, safely upgraded > schema so I can double check I haven't clobbered anything? > > The queries I ended up having to run to revert things to a state where > the upgrade process would work was: > > 160115 19:34:12 2197763 Query ALTER TABLE > accounts_reviewrequestvisit DROP COLUMN visibility > 160115 19:34:24 2197763 Query DROP INDEX > `accounts_reviewrequestvisit_05ee5d21` ON > `accounts_reviewrequestvisit` > 160115 19:34:45 2197763 Query ALTER TABLE attachments_fileattachment > DROP COLUMN attachment_revision, DROP COLUMN attachment_history_id > 160115 19:34:58 2197763 Query ALTER TABLE diffviewer_filediff DROP > COLUMN raw_diff_hash_id, DROP COLUMN raw_parent_diff_hash_id > 160115 19:36:18 2197763 Query ALTER TABLE `reviews_group` DROP > COLUMN `email_list_only`, DROP COLUMN is_default_group > 160115 19:36:25 2197763 Query DROP TABLE > reviews_reviewrequest_file_attachment_histories > > Note that I observed that the Reviewboard process tries to reverse > it's failed upgrade by doing a rollback. It is noted in the case of > InnoDB that schema changes cannot be rolled back (see > http://www.sitepoint.com/mysql-transaction-gotchas-good-parts/) > > > > > Christian > > Cheers, > Ben > > > > > -- > > Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com > > Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org > > Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ben Cooksley > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Ben Cooksley > wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Christian Hammond > >> > > wrote: > >> >> Hi Ben, > >> >> > >> >> This is due to a mismatch between MySQL table types. The existing > >> >> tables are > >> >> likely MyISAM, with MySQL now defaulting to InnoDB for new ones. > You'll > >> >> need > >> >> to either migrate all the existing tables, or tell MySQL to use the > >> >> existing > >> >> type for new tables. > >> >> > >> >> (It's a pretty terrible error, but unfortunately, beyond our > control. I > >> >> just > >> >> recognize this sort of problem.) > >> > > >> > Argh. Our systems usually have InnoDB as default, guess that isn't > the > >> > case when we originally had Reviewboard provisioned. > >> > I shouldn't see any issues migrating all tables into InnoDB correct? > >> >
Re: 207 error for ssh:// repository URIs when http:// URIs work
This is a rather old thread, so I hope the people discussing here are still
in the group.
My question: reading this says to me, that reviewboard simply can not be
used with Mercurial over ssh. And still not in 2016. Am I right here?
Thanks and Cheers, Wolfgang
Am Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2011 08:10:37 UTC+2 schrieb morisgi:
>
> AFAIK, the "hg serve --stdio" command does not start hgweb. It just
> instruct
> HG to start the wire protocol to listen on SSH stdin instead of a HTTP
> socket. But the HG wire protocol has no command to retrieve a file
> revision
> content.
>
> So the solution would be to either:
> - Implement a new wire command to retrieve a file revision on the HG side.
> There has always been some push back for such requests, so I don't see
> that
> happen.
> - Implement a specialized HGSSHClient class in the hg.py of the
> ReviewBoard
> scmtools to would run remotely run "hg cat" command and dump the result
> over
> the SSH link, instead of trying to run the HG wire protocol over SSH.
> The Pros is that this would work with any mercurial version.
> The drawback of this solution is that you can't protect SSH accesses with
> the
> hg-ssh script. You would have to use a different wrapper.
>
> Regards.
> Gilles.
>
> On Thursday 19 May 2011 01:11:37 am Chris Toomey wrote:
> > Thanks Giles. When I was trying to debug it I saw that it was running
> > "hg serve" remotely on the target host over ssh, so it looked like it
> > should thus be able to work w/ the same hgweb interface, but that's
> > about where I got stuck trying to figure out why it wasn't working.
> > Was that some work that was started and not completed or was I
> > misinterpreting how it was trying to work?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On May 17, 10:27 pm, Gilles Moris wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:51:07 am Chris Toomey wrote:
> > > > Hi Christian,
> > > >
> > > > It just has the info about the file/revision that it says it can't
> > > > find:
> > > >
> > > > {"stat": "fail", "err": {"msg": "The file was not found in the
> > > > repository", "code": 207}, "file": "webapp/zend/application/
> > > > Bootstrap.php", "revision": "89c64afda439"}
> > > >
> > > > If I cd to the repository dir. on the server (the RB server and
> > > > mercurial repository are on the same host) and execute "hg cat -r
> > > > 89c64afda439 webapp/zend/application/Bootstrap.php" I get the
> contents
> > > > of that rev. of the file, which is definitely in the repository. And
> > > > again, it's able to access that rev. of the file when I use an
> http://
> > > > repository path in RB.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > >
> > > The 'hg cat' command cannot operate remotely through ssh://
> repositories.
> > > It works only locally. The http:// repos in RB work around that using
> the
> > > raw file download from the hgweb interface.
> > > So you cannot configure a HG repo with ssh:// from ReviewBoard.
> > > You have to use local path (or NFS/SMB) or http://. It might be
> possible
> > > to use https:// as well.
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > > Gilles.
>
>
>
--
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.
ssh connected hg repo: posting review requests always fails with error 207
Hi, I installed reviewboard using easy_install. I've version 2.5.3 in place. I've created a repository within reviewboard, it's a Mercurial repo, connected via ssh. My configuration is: Name: testrepo3 Hosting service: none Repository type: Mercurial Path: ssh://wn@192.168.116.128/repos/testrepo3 ssh key is correctly set. When I now add a file to the repo and create a review request related to the changeset containing that new file, everything is fine, the request is correctly created in reviewboard, I'm able to inspect the diff and publish the request. As soon as I change a file I always get the error message 207. I tried different repos including brand new ones, an older and the most recent version of Mercurial, different machines (everything on Linux). It always fails. I tracked it down to HgTool::get_file and HgClient::cat_file in hg.py in scmtools and there within to _run_hg. Here I wrote the command line handed over to the popen call into the debug log and found that the values for both hg command line parameters --repository and --cwd are set to the value of Path I set the in repository configuration, here ssh://wn@192.168.116.128/repos/testrepo3. According to my understanding of the hg command, --cwd should contain a local path and no ssh URL. (Or am I wrong here?) And the error message I read from stderr after the popen call (hg.py, HgClient, cat_file, in the 'if path' statement after the _run_hg call) says: abort: No such file or directory: 'ssh://wn@192.168.116.128/repos/testrepo3' How can this work with Mercurial and ssh at all? Is it anyone successfully using with a custom hosted Mercurial and ssh? Wouldn't it make more sense to mark 'Mirror path' mandatory and use that path in the --cwd option? Cheers, Wolfgang -- 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 upgrade failure
I too had this issue (MySQL default changing from MyISAM to InnoDB). Although I understand that this is caused by MySQL version being updated at the same time as a Reviewboard Update (and migrate). But would there be any way for the 'upgrade' logic of Reviewboard to post a more useful error message (DB Table formats dont match) or something like that. As I am sure it will save a lot of time for some people (but I dont have the skills to make these changes sadly) Dan On Friday, 15 January 2016 07:27:08 UTC, Ben Cooksley wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > While upgrading from Reviewboard 2.0.17 to 2.5.2 i've encountered a > few SQL errors. > Reviewboard itself appears to boot and run fine though, based on the > nature of the errors I suspect it's a case of index name collisions. > > Output from the upgrade process is below: > > (virtualenv)reviewboard@mimi:~$ rb-site upgrade > /srv/www/reviewboard/git.reviewboard.kde.org/ > Rebuilding directory structure > Updating database. This may take a while. > > The log output below, including warnings and errors, > can be ignored unless upgrade fails. > > -- -- > Creating tables ... > Creating table accounts_trophy > > [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the > database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then > continue. > [!] Details: (1005, "Can't create table 'reviewboard_git.#sql- > 331d_214215' (errno: 150)") > > Press Enter to continue > Creating tables ... > Creating table attachments_fileattachmenthistory > Creating table diffviewer_rawfilediffdata > Creating table notifications_webhooktarget_repositories > > [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the > database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then > continue. > [!] Details: (1005, "Can't create table 'reviewboard_git.#sql- > 331d_214215' (errno: 150)") > > Press Enter to continue > Creating tables ... > Creating table notifications_webhooktarget > > [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the > database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then > continue. > [!] Details: (1005, "Can't create table 'reviewboard_git.#sql- > 331d_214215' (errno: 150)") > > Press Enter to continue > Creating tables ... > Creating table webapi_webapitoken > > [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the > database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then > continue. > [!] Details: (1005, "Can't create table 'reviewboard_git.#sql- > 331d_214215' (errno: 150)") > > Press Enter to continue > Creating tables ... > Upgrading Review Board from 2.0.17 to 2.5.2 > There are unapplied evolutions for accounts. > There are unapplied evolutions for attachments. > There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer. > There are unapplied evolutions for notifications. > There are unapplied evolutions for reviews. > There are unapplied evolutions for webapi. > Adding baseline version for new models > Evolutions in notifications baseline: webhooktarget_extra_state, > webhooktarget_extra_data_null > Project signature has changed - an evolution is required > Installing custom SQL ... > Installing indexes ... > Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) > CommandError: Error applying evolution: (1005, "Can't create table > 'reviewboard_git.#sql-331d_214238' (errno: 150)") > > Any pointers? > > Cheers, > Ben Cooksley > KDE Sysadmin > -- 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.
Help regarding renamed git could not be found in the repo
Hi all, I got some files that have been renamed using git mv command. Using git diff with argument "-C" to generate a diff file with file moving support, reviewboard complains that the files could not be foung in the repo. generating diff without "-C" helps a bit but not ideal for reviewer in the reviewboard. Has anyone had similar experience or know the possible solution to this? Thanks in advance, Teddy -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Unable to add reviewers to review
Hi, this is likely something very simple. when open an existing RB review as submitter on the review, reviewers field is empty, required, but no pencil icon is there to assign reviewers. (pencil icon is on most other fields) There will be many projects/repos in out environment. We want access to a repo in RB based on group (group will be assigned to multiple repos), and reviewers selected from that group. We do not want content of repos or reviews publicly viewable (or viewable outside the review group). ENV: - centos 6 with epel installed Reviewboard 1.7.11 - repo configured in RB (show repo selected) - review group configured in RB (visable/invite only) - review group assigned to repo (review group with access in repo config) post-review creates RB review with RB account "auto" submit-as "user1". user1 logs in to Web UI and cannot add reviewers to the review. What do I need to do to fix this? Thanks- Mark -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Getting a 404 when ReviewBoard queries Gitweb for a particular revision
Does the following work? (change hb to h) http://git.ourdomain.com/?p=reponame.git;a=blob_plain;f=path/to/file.txt;h=e4643b1cc6c8c05f17d4079f2d68d078bba96a4c ref: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/reviewboard/YmrjZyUsvX8/zqEEgtuznpMJ On Thu, August 1, 2013 9:18 pm, Chris Armstrong wrote: > Hi folks, > > Been struggling with ReviewBoard on this issue and would love some > guidance. I have a repository configured in RB as follows: > > Repository type: Git > Path: g...@git.ourdomain.com:reponame.git > Raw file URL > mask: > http://git.ourdomain.com/?p=reponame.git;a=blob_plain;f=;hb= > > Now, when working locally, I am on master and make one commit that I'd like > to have code reviewed. I invoke rbt as follows: > > rbt post -g -d --target-groups=sysadmin > I get an error saying the file cannot be found (a file which has existed in > the repo far earlier than my recent commit -- I am just making a change to > it). > > The error in the RB server logs is: > > 2013-08-02 01:01:11,300 - INFO - - Fetching file from > http://git.ourdomain.com/?p=reponame.git;a=blob_plain;f=path/to/file.txt;hb=e4643b1cc6c8c05f17d4079f2d68d078bba96a4c > 2013-08-02 01:01:11,441 - ERROR - - 404 > > Requesting the file directly from gitweb with > http://git.ourdomain.com/?p=reponame.git;a=blob_plain;f=path/to/file.txt;hb=e4643b1cc6c8c05f17d4079f2d68d078bba96a4c > also returns a 404 error. A bit of trial and error leads me to realize that > requesting the file without specifying the revision works just fine: > http://git.ourdomain.com/?p=reponame.git;a=blob_plain;f=path/to/file.txt > > Locally, git show e4643b1cc6c8c05f17d4079f2d68d078bba96a4c shows me the > file, and on a coworker's computer who does not have my latest commit that > I am having code reviewed (because I have not pushed it yet) this git show > also shows me the file. So, something has to be wrong with GitWeb I'd > imagine, but I have no idea what. Gitweb operates on the same repository > that we are pulling from locally, so that revision has to exist. Earlier > today I played around with the permissions on these directories in order to > have them appear in gitweb - is it possible that I messed something up > there? > > We have also tried specifying various other command-line options to rbt: > --parent and --tracking-branch to no avail. Can anyone shed some light on > what's going on? > > Thanks, > Chris > > -- > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at > http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: User Not Receiving Emails
Hey Stephen, Thanks for the suggestion :). The reviewboard logs generated don't suggest that there was anything wrong with sending the email for this user which might be because the error is masked elsewhere. There is nothing unusual about the name (it is entirely alphabetic). On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:12:49 AM UTC-7, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On 07/31/2013 12:54 PM, ReviewBoard user wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a very specific user that can't receive emails via ReviewBoard > > when creating requests or updates to the request. I checked this against > > the database, and he is an active user with the correct email. > > > > I'm attempting to follow the code to send out an email that would > > replicate the code flow. Are there any tips on how to do this? > > > > So far, I have done a search on the code from github to get hints on how > > to do this, but each method requires multiple arguments that I can't > > confidently supply. > > > > > https://github.com/search?l=&p=8&q=mail++repo%3Areviewboard%2Freviewboard&ref=advsearch&type=Code > > > > > Any other advice for debugging why the user is not receiving the email? > > I have already tried going onto the mail server and using shell commands > > to manually send the user emails. The user can receive them perfectly > > fine which makes this a bigger mystery. > > > > Thanks for any help :D > > > > Have you checked the mail-server debug logs to see if ReviewBoard has > *tried* to send a message? Also, is there anything unusual about the > user's name or email address? Is it possible that it contains some > unusual characters that might be confusing ReviewBoard or the MTA? > > > -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~----~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
User Not Receiving Emails
Hello, I have a very specific user that can't receive emails via ReviewBoard when creating requests or updates to the request. I checked this against the database, and he is an active user with the correct email. I'm attempting to follow the code to send out an email that would replicate the code flow. Are there any tips on how to do this? So far, I have done a search on the code from github to get hints on how to do this, but each method requires multiple arguments that I can't confidently supply. https://github.com/search?l=&p=8&q=mail++repo%3Areviewboard%2Freviewboard&ref=advsearch&type=Code Any other advice for debugging why the user is not receiving the email? I have already tried going onto the mail server and using shell commands to manually send the user emails. The user can receive them perfectly fine which makes this a bigger mystery. Thanks for any help :D -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Git Raw URL
Just completed setting up gitweb and reviewboard. The raw URL format (from the docs) did not work. Git repos are on a different server than reviewboard and are access controlled via gitolite. gitweb installed on the git repo server and runs with file system read access to the git repos. to test, manual diff created 'git diff --full-index' and manually uploaded via reviewboard website. did not work: http://servername/?p=relative path to git repo;a=blob_plain;f=;hb= the above raw URL returns: 404 - cannot find file when creating new RB record did work (change hb= to h=): http://servername/?p=relative path to git repo;a=blob_plain;f=;h= the above raw URL worked, review created and can view diff in reviewboard Is this legit or did I setup something wrong that lead to this situation? -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Error creating review request using post-review
Hi Christian
I managed to get it working as below (just in case these tips come
handy for anyone else)
My working env is
1) ReviewBoard 1.5 installed on RHEL4 with Python 2.4, Subversion 1.4
server, Apache 2.2, Django 1.2
2) Tortoise SVN Client on Windows (1.6) to access SVN over https only.
(http: read-only)
3) Using review-on-commit.py hook from
http://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/tree/master/contrib/tools to
create review request upon commit
4) Reviewboard installed at http://server/reviewboard/
Modified the review-on-commit.py script and added 'HOME' : '/tmp' to
the line "env = {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8'}"
data = execute([os.path.join(POSTREVIEW_PATH, 'post-review')] + args,
env = {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'HOME': '/tmp'})
On Aug 10, 4:04 am, Christian Hammond wrote:
> What happens if you use a fully-qualified domain? Say, server.yourdomain.com.
> This sounds like a cookie storage issue. I don't believe Python's HTTP
> library stores cookies for non-fully-qualified domains, though I'd hope it
> would at least work for that session...
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
> VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:49 PM, ReviewBoard User <
>
> lalitha.viswan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. ReviewBoard 1.5
> > 2. Apache 2.2
> > 3. SVN 1.4
> > 4. Python 2.4
>
> > Am trying to post a review on a post-commit hook from subversion
> > Running the below command
> > /usr/bin/post-review --server=http://server/reviewboard/--repository-
> > url=file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/ --username=svn '--
> > password=svn' '--submit-as=svn' '--revision-range=4493:4494' '--
> > publish' '--summary=testing reviewboard creation' '--description=(In
> > [4494]) testing reviewboard creation' -d
>
> > This is the output I get from post-review.
>
> > >>> svn info file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/
> > >>> diff --version
> > >>> repository info: Path: file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox, Base path:
> > /, Supports changesets: False
> > >>> svn diff --diff-cmd=diff file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/@4493
> > file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/@4494
> > >>> Looking for 'server/reviewboard/' cookie in
> > /home/svn/.post-review-cookies.txt
> > >>> Cookie file loaded, but no cookie for this server
> > ==> Review Board Login Required
> > Enter username and password for Review Board athttp://server/reviewboard/
> > >>> Logging in with username "svn"
> > >>> HTTP POSTing tohttp://server/reviewboard/api/json/accounts/login/:
> > {'username': 'svn', 'password': '**'}
> > >>> Logged in.
> > >>> HTTP GETting /api/json/repositories/
> > >>> HTTP GETting /api/json/repositories/1/info/
> > >>> repository info: Path:https://server/svn/sandbox, Base path: /,
> > Supports changesets: False
> > >>> Attempting to create review request onhttps://server/svn/sandboxfor
> > None
> > >>> Submitting the review request as svn
> > >>> HTTP POSTing tohttp://server/reviewboard/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
> > {'repository_path': 'https://vhabosapp8/svn/sandbox', 'submit_as':
> > 'sandbox'}
> > >>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 200): You are not logged in
> > >>> Error data: {'deprecated': {'in_version': '1.5'}, 'stat': 'fail',
> > 'err': {'msg': 'You are not logged in', 'code': 103}}
> > ==> Review Board Login Required
> > Enter username and password for Review Board athttp://server/reviewboard/
> > >>> Logging in with username "svn"
> > >>> HTTP POSTing tohttp://server/reviewboard/api/json/accounts/login/:
> > {'username': 'svn', 'password': '**'}
> > >>> Logged in.
> > >>> Attempting to create review request onhttps://server/svn/sandboxfor
> > None
> > >>> Submitting the review request as svn
> > >>> HTTP POSTing tohttp://server/reviewboard/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
> > {'repository_path': 'https://server/svn/sandbox', 'submit_as': 'svn'}
> > >>> Got API Error 103 (HT
Error creating review request using post-review
1. ReviewBoard 1.5
2. Apache 2.2
3. SVN 1.4
4. Python 2.4
Am trying to post a review on a post-commit hook from subversion
Running the below command
/usr/bin/post-review --server=http://server/reviewboard/ --repository-
url=file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/ --username=svn '--
password=svn' '--submit-as=svn' '--revision-range=4493:4494' '--
publish' '--summary=testing reviewboard creation' '--description=(In
[4494]) testing reviewboard creation' -d
This is the output I get from post-review.
>>> svn info file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/
>>> diff --version
>>> repository info: Path: file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox, Base path: /,
>>> Supports changesets: False
>>> svn diff --diff-cmd=diff file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/@4493
>>> file:///var/svn/repositories/sandbox/@4494
>>> Looking for 'server/reviewboard/' cookie in
>>> /home/svn/.post-review-cookies.txt
>>> Cookie file loaded, but no cookie for this server
==> Review Board Login Required
Enter username and password for Review Board at http://server/reviewboard/
>>> Logging in with username "svn"
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/accounts/login/:
>>> {'username': 'svn', 'password': '**'}
>>> Logged in.
>>> HTTP GETting /api/json/repositories/
>>> HTTP GETting /api/json/repositories/1/info/
>>> repository info: Path: https://server/svn/sandbox, Base path: /, Supports
>>> changesets: False
>>> Attempting to create review request on https://server/svn/sandbox for None
>>> Submitting the review request as svn
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
>>> {'repository_path': 'https://vhabosapp8/svn/sandbox', 'submit_as':
>>> 'sandbox'}
>>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 200): You are not logged in
>>> Error data: {'deprecated': {'in_version': '1.5'}, 'stat': 'fail', 'err':
>>> {'msg': 'You are not logged in', 'code': 103}}
==> Review Board Login Required
Enter username and password for Review Board at http://server/reviewboard/
>>> Logging in with username "svn"
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/accounts/login/:
>>> {'username': 'svn', 'password': '**'}
>>> Logged in.
>>> Attempting to create review request on https://server/svn/sandbox for None
>>> Submitting the review request as svn
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
>>> {'repository_path': 'https://server/svn/sandbox', 'submit_as': 'svn'}
>>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 200): You are not logged in
>>> Error data: {'deprecated': {'in_version': '1.5'}, 'stat': 'fail', 'err':
>>> {'msg': 'You are not logged in', 'code': 103}}
==> Review Board Login Required
Enter username and password for Review Board at http://server/reviewboard/
>>> Logging in with username "svn"
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/accounts/login/:
>>> {'username': 'svn', 'password': '**'}
>>> Logged in.
>>> Attempting to create review request on https://server/svn/sandbox for None
>>> Submitting the review request as svn
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
>>> {'repository_path': 'https://server/svn/sandbox', 'submit_as': 'svn'}
>>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 200): You are not logged in
>>> Error data: {'deprecated': {'in_version': '1.5'}, 'stat': 'fail', 'err':
>>> {'msg': 'You are not logged in', 'code': 103}}
==> Review Board Login Required
Enter username and password for Review Board at http://server/reviewboard/
>>> Logging in with username "svn"
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/accounts/login/:
>>> {'username': 'svn', 'password': '**'}
>>> Logged in.
>>> Attempting to create review request on https://server/svn/sandbox for None
>>> Submitting the review request as svn
>>> HTTP POSTing to http://server/reviewboard/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
>>> {'repository_path': 'https://server/svn/sandbox', 'submit_as': 'svn'}
>>> Got API Error 103 (HTTP code 200): You are not logged in
>>> Error data: {'deprecated': {'in_version': '1.5'}, 'stat': 'fail', 'err':
>>> {'msg': 'You are not logged in', 'code': 103}}
Error creating review request: You are not logged in (HTTP 200, API
Error 103)
I am able to login and create reviews manually at http://server/reviewboard
using username "svn" and password (same as the one specified for post-
review)
--
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: Error uploading diff your review request still exists, but the diff file is not attached
Hi I tried running it in debug mode, it generates the diff but continues to throw the error "Error uploading diff" Your review request exists, but the diff file is not attached Any inputs on resolving it would be very helpful. Thanks L On Aug 5, 5:21 pm, David Ulevitch wrote: > Thanks. That put me on the right path to solving it. > > To close the loop: > > I had to create a ~/.ssh/config file (where ~/ == www-data's home dir) > > The contents: > host svn.example.com > user davidu > > That caused it to actually try to ssh as davidu all the time, which > for some reason, it wasn't. > > Now all works and life is mostly good. > > Thanks, > David > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM, David Trowbridge wrote: > > Probably the best thing is to run post-review with --debug and the > > same arguments that the post-commit-hook is using, and see what the > > output is. > > > -David > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM, ReviewBoard User > > wrote: > >> Hi > >> I am trying to automate post-review on a RHEL4. Here are the specs > >> 1. Python 2.4 > >> 2. Apache 2.2 > >> 4. ReviewBoard 1.05 RC1 > >> 5. SVN 1.4.2 > > >> I am using the script below on a subversion post-commit-hook > >>http://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/tree/master/contrib/tools > > >> htdocs/media is owned by apache-user > > >> I am encountering below error > >> 1. Error uploading diff. Your review request exists, but the diff file > >> is not attached > >> 2. I am pointing to base of repository, NOT to a sub directory (Base > >> is :/var/svn/repos) > >> 3. It generates a diff file when I run in debug mode with -output-diff > > >> Why is it not uploading the diff file? > > >> -- > >> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today > >> athttp://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > >> Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > >> -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> For more options, visit this group > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en > > > -- > > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today > > athttp://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ > > Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > > -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Error uploading diff your review request still exists, but the diff file is not attached
Hi I am trying to automate post-review on a RHEL4. Here are the specs 1. Python 2.4 2. Apache 2.2 4. ReviewBoard 1.05 RC1 5. SVN 1.4.2 I am using the script below on a subversion post-commit-hook http://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/tree/master/contrib/tools htdocs/media is owned by apache-user I am encountering below error 1. Error uploading diff. Your review request exists, but the diff file is not attached 2. I am pointing to base of repository, NOT to a sub directory (Base is :/var/svn/repos) 3. It generates a diff file when I run in debug mode with -output-diff Why is it not uploading the diff file? -- 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
