Were you trying to expand a diff that was still attached to a draft of a
review request? Or was it actually a published diff visible to everyone?

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com


On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Thilo-Alexander Ginkel <th...@ginkel.com>wrote:

>
> On Friday 25 September 2009 21:38:35 Christian Hammond wrote:
> > This is a standard diff, not an interdiff?
>
> Yes, it's a standard diff.
>
> One interesting thing is that for requests created prior to 1.0.3 the
> fragment
> expansion still seems to work (I just tried a couple of requests, though).
> Only for newly created requests the diff # gets created incorrectly. If I
> specify "diff/1" instead of "diff/0" in the URL I can correctly retrieve
> the
> fragment.
>
> What is even more interesting (but also confusing) is that the expansion
> magically started working for the request # 280 I mentioned in my original
> message (I just checked it via VPN from home to get the exact URL for the
> bug
> report). The diff # in the JavaScript source has changed to 1...
>
> Any idea?
>
> Thanks,
> Thilo
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to