Hi Chris,

You may have said this already and I may have missed it, but is the core
problem with the various proxy names that post-review's unable to find the
correct repository to patch? If so, you can reference repositories by name
instead of by path:

http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/#repository

Christian

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


On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:00 PM, chrisn <ch...@newbold.org> wrote:

> Yes, thanks David and Christian for the tips on configuration that
> enabled us to finally track down the mis-configuration. The final,
> working configuration has the 'p4 info' name in the repository Path
> and the proxy in the Mirror Path.
>
> We still have somewhat of an issue with proxies, however. When the
> server to which the proxy directs clients changes, Review Board stops
> working until we manually update the configuration with the "new"
> value from 'p4 info'. For example, we had things working at the end of
> last week, but a weekend fail-over of the Perforce server changed the
> result of 'p4 info' and everything stopped working again.
>
> -Chris
>
> On Jul 22, 9:47 am, SCFrench <sc...@mathworks.com> wrote:
> > I've been working with Chris on this issue. We seem to have it working
> > now. There appears to have been two issues that were combining to make
> > this harder than usual to fix. First, the diagnostics on the call to
> > p4 in get_file in perforce.py are relying on the exit status to
> > indicate that something went wrong. However, as I found here:
> http://forums.perforce.com/index.php?/topic/682-noob-question-changel...,
> > the exit status of p4 is almost always 0. When I finally figured out
> > what p4 command was being run by get_file, and ran it manually, I got
> > this failure (edited slightly to remove private information):
> >
> > % p4 -p perforce-xx-xxx.mathworks.com:1666 -u cnxxxxxx print -q '//xxx/
> > xxx/queue/matlab/src/m_interpreter/mi_interpreter/clear.cpp#17'
> > //xxx/xxx/queue/matlab/src/m_interpreter/mi_interpreter/clear.cpp#17 -
> > no permission for operation on file(s).
> >
> > % echo $?
> > 0
> >
> > The link above discusses some ways to improve error checking on
> > scripted p4 invocations, by using the -s option. Not sure if that will
> > work for Review Board, but I thought I'd pass it along.
> >
> > The second issue was that once the file clear.cpp had been incorrectly
> > retrieved, the bad (empty) version got cached, and subsequent attempts
> > to fix the problem by changing the name of the repository at the admin
> > site apparently were effective no-ops because that information is
> > ignored if the file is already cached locally. Restarting memcached
> > cleared the cache and allowed us to make progress on the first issue.
> >
> > Hope this information helps to make Review Board even better!
> >
> > Scott
> > On Jul 20, 1:57 pm, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> >
> > > The Path field should probably point to the proxy, and Mirror Path
> should
> > > point to 'p4 info'. It's a bit confusing (the Mirror Path name exists
> for
> > > legacy reasons) and I want to clean that up, but start with that.
> Basically,
> > > we'll always communicate through Path, but we check both Path and
> Mirror
> > > Path when using post-review.
> >
> > > We can't log the commands because, with the exception of one case,
> we're not
> > > calling out to p4. We're instead using the Python bindings for the
> library
> > > that is talking directly to the server.
> >
> > > Christian
> >
> > > --
> > > Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> > > Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
> > > VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:29 AM, chrisn <ch...@newbold.org> wrote:
> > > > I just filedhttp://
> code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2182
> > > > to describe an issue with ReviewBoard and Perforce proxy servers that
> > > > is effectively blocking us from using ReviewBoard.
> >
> > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts or BTDT advice about how I might be able
> > > > to work around the problem.
> >
> > > > Thanks.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
> > > >http://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 at
> > > >http://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
>

-- 
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

Reply via email to