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 R
Strange.. Okay, I want to run something else.
$ rb-site manage /var/www/reviews shell
import reviewboard
print reviewboard.VERSION
print reviewboard.__file__
import haystack
print haystack.__version__
print haystack.__file__
That'll just help me verify that the versions and paths we're seeing ar
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/py
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 st
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
Hi,
It's not normal on an Ubuntu install to hit a 500 error like this. If
you're seeing a 500 this early, it's usually something failing before any
requests even get to Review Board. These might appear in the apache
error_log in the Review Board site directory's logs/ directory, or maybe in
Apache
Hi,
Do you have any relevant logs you can show, and a full repro case? I don't
really have any context to go off of here.
What kind of work was done on the server?
Christian
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, venkata kumar
wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Recently our Sub version server got patched and now
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 looku
Hi Christian,
Thank you for the reply.
There is no log being generated in the Review Board folder, but I did see
something I hadn't noticed before in the apache log:
[Thu Oct 05 06:25:03.401752 2017] [wsgi:warn] [pid 17317:tid
> 140477232400256] mod_wsgi: Compiled for Python/2.7.11.
> [Thu Oct
Forgot to mention in last message: I talked it over with my supervisor and,
to the best of our knowledge, there are no other Web Services running on
that server.
On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:08:36 PM UTC-4,
ddu...@aviationintertec.com wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
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 Review
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 <
revi
12 matches
Mail list logo