On May 11, 9:55 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> With this SCM, is the change identifier a server-stored ID that contains the
> description and other information for Review Board to parse? Or is it more
> like an atomic ID representing that change that gets pushed to the server
> when committed?

The SCM supports both committed and uncommitted changes and in both
cases the change ID provides a means to retrieve meta-information
about the change (such as a description, list of involved files, etc.)
from the SCM server.

> If the former, and if you want to support pulling that information from the
> server, then we'll need a patch to make Review Board less strict about the
> type of input, and move validation of the ID into the SCMTools.
> [...]

I actually got a first version to work by declaring the repository not
to support change sets and moving the summary / description retrieval
into post-review where the full change id is still available.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to be able to support this on the
server side leaving less hacks in post-review (and the positive side-
effect that submitting the same change a second time would update an
existing review).

About patching RB to be less strict: I think the exception happens
somewhere in the relational database mapping, so changing this would
affect both the DB schema (which currently declares the changeset ID
as an int) as well as plenty other places in the code which I
currently cannot yet overlook being a novice to the RB code.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to