Hi Chris, Just to close the loop on this topic - the problem with the diffs that I mentioned turned out to be a memcache issue. Turns out that using memcache on a test machine where you're continually deleting and recreating a perforce depot and rb site, thus reusing change list numbers, can be very confusing to memcached :) I turned off memcache and then got the diffs I was expecting.
--Steve On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 10:49:14 AM UTC-7, Steve wrote: > > Issue 3864 created. > > Thanks! > > --Steve > > > On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 7:14:07 PM UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote: >> >> 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 - chi...@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...@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.
