Ok great, thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 20:49, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>
> The fix will be included in 2.5.17 and 3.0.1. I expect we’ll get 2.5.17 out
> in about a week.
>
> Christian
>
>
>> On Wed, Nov 2
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
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
gt; 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
>>&
t ..." (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.
>
>
he 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
n?
>
> 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 i
gt;
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2017, at 19:15, Christian Hammond <chri...@beanbaginc.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. Okay, yeah, you'd need to remove the commit ID from one of
>> them for now. I'll put a fix together for the next 2.5.x an
tack 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))
>
>
t;
>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:46 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>> <reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> Here you go...
>>
>> ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
>> Traceback (most recent c
%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(cur
gt; has_attr)
> if not has_attr:
> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s.%s at %s --
> %s:%s) does not have a model_attr '%s' (%s -- %s)." %
> (obj.__class__.__name__, current_object.pk,
> current_object.__class__.__module__,
> current_object.
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
ed 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 <
>
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..
nt in this where I won't be able to diagnose
> much else over e-mail, and am basically out of ideas. We'd need to either
> work directly on your system, set up a live session to diagnose it, or
> provide a series of custom builds and gather confidential information, and
ield):
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.
>
> Christia
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
beanbaginc.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> It was a couple e-mails ago, but can you actually just attach
>> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py? I'll see if that logic
>> differs from what is in 2.3.1.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>&g
kages/haystack/fields.py? I'll see if that logic
> differs from what is in 2.3.1.
>
> Christian
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>> <reviewboard@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, which one line?
>>
>>> On
;
> 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.
>>
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
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
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__
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ministrators 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 r
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
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
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
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.
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
gt;>>>
>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our
>>>>> live reviewboard server.
>>>>> Th
r 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
>>>
oard 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
>>>
&
ristian 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
41 matches
Mail list logo
