Hi Steve,

Glad it hear it (with the exception of the diff not being correct).

I'd appreciate a bug report on it. I won't be able to get to this right
away, so having all these details will help for later.

Thanks!

Christian

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

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Steve <seide.al...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> The good news is, your diagnosis is correct.  Use of '-g no' got past the
> error.  The bad news is, the diff posted is not correct.  But I found that
> the diff posted with 0.6.3 is the same incorrect diff (it's incomplete and
> appears to be a single change instead of a range), so I'm going to have to
> investigate that some more and get back to you.
>
> Do I need to file a bug on this issue, or do you have enough already to
> resolve it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Steve
>
> On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 6:52:29 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> This looks like a bug with the commit message guessing feature and
>> Perforce revision ranges. Can you try running the same command with '-g no'
>> ?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Steve <seide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been doing a fair amount of testing of RBTools in preparation for
>>> moving to RB 2.0 and I've come across a few important issues that are
>>> preventing us from moving to RBTools 0.7.  The 2 most significant ones
>>> appear to be regressions as my tests pass in 0.6.3 but fail in 0.7.2.
>>>
>>> The first issue has already been reported by someone else as issue
>>> 3843.  I've reproduced it and added a comment saying that it doesn't happen
>>> in 0.6.3 and I can provide a test file if desired.
>>>
>>> The second issue comes up when I try to post a review using a range of
>>> perforce change lists.  This always worked for us with post-review, and it
>>> works with RBTools 0.6.3, but fails with 0.7.2.  Here's an example:
>>>
>>> $  rbt --version
>>> RBTools 0.6.3
>>> $ rbt post  //depot/Jam/MAIN/src/...@813,@823
>>> Review request #11 posted.
>>>
>>> http://localhost/r/11/
>>> http://localhost/r/11/diff/
>>>
>>> I discarded that review and then ran the same exact command against the
>>> same repo using RBTools 0.7.2. I had to add the debug option to get any
>>> useful output:
>>> $  rbt --version
>>> RBTools 0.7.2
>>> $ rbt post  -d  //depot/Jam/MAIN/src/...@813,@823
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> +Test submitting a review with a shelve and no ship its.
>>> ---
>>> >>> Writing "//depot/Jam/MAIN/src/RELNOTES#77" to "/tmp/tmpQNewPu"
>>> >>> Running: p4 print -o /tmp/tmpQNewPu -q
>>> //depot/Jam/MAIN/src/RELNOTES#77
>>> >>> Writing "//depot/Jam/MAIN/src/RELNOTES#78" to "/tmp/tmpUJo72G"
>>> >>> Running: p4 print -o /tmp/tmpUJo72G -q
>>> //depot/Jam/MAIN/src/RELNOTES#78
>>> >>> Running: diff -urNp /tmp/tmpQNewPu /tmp/tmpUJo72G
>>> >>> Command exited with rc 1: [u'diff', u'-urNp', '/tmp/tmpQNewPu',
>>> '/tmp/tmpUJo72G']
>>> --- /tmp/tmpQNewPu      2015-05-05 17:54:57.889010010 -0700
>>> +++ /tmp/tmpUJo72G      2015-05-05 17:54:57.893009847 -0700
>>> @@ -548,3 +548,4 @@ Release notes for Jam 2.0.
>>>
>>>         A poorly set $(JAMSHELL) is likely to result in silent
>>>         failure.
>>> +Test creating with 2 jobs.
>>> ---
>>> >>> Making HTTP GET request to http://localhost/api/validation/diffs/
>>> >>> Cached response for HTTP GET http://localhost/api/validation/diffs/
>>> expired and was modified
>>> >>> Making HTTP POST request to http://localhost/api/validation/diffs/
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>   File "/home/sallan/envs/rbtools-0.7.2/bin/rbt", line 9, in <module>
>>>     load_entry_point('RBTools==0.7.2', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()
>>>   File
>>> "/home/sallan/envs/rbtools-0.7.2/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.2-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/main.py",
>>> line 133, in main
>>>     command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)
>>>   File
>>> "/home/sallan/envs/rbtools-0.7.2/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.2-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/__init__.py",
>>> line 555, in run_from_argv
>>>     exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0
>>>   File
>>> "/home/sallan/envs/rbtools-0.7.2/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.2-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py",
>>> line 714, in main
>>>     self.check_guess_fields()
>>>   File
>>> "/home/sallan/envs/rbtools-0.7.2/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RBTools-0.7.2-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py",
>>> line 553, in check_guess_fields
>>>     assert self.revisions
>>> AssertionError
>>>
>>>
>>> When I ran it under a debugger, I found that it was trying to run
>>>
>>> p4 change  //depot/Jam/MAIN/src/...@813,@823
>>>
>>> which understandably failed.  So something changed drastically between
>>> 0.6 and 0.7.  Any ideas as to why this use case no longer works in 0.7?
>>>
>>> Please let me know if I can provide any more information.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --Steve
>>>
>>> --
>>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>>> https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
>>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>>> https://rbcommons.com/
>>> Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "reviewboard" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: 
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: 
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to