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 - [email protected] Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Steve <[email protected]> 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 - [email protected] >> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org >> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Steve <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
