Hi Jay,

What version were you using before you upgraded?

I suspect you're hitting a problem due to a fix we put in several releases
back. It was always the intention that any extra_data key associated with a
custom review request field should be set with the draft review request
API, which would then carry over to the review request when published, just
like any other field.

We had a bug that got fixed where the state between the two was being
shared incorrectly at a specific point, which caused undesired behavior. We
fixed this, and it's possible that exposed a problem in this extension.

How is this field used? Is there a need to expose this field in the UI?

Would you be able to share the source of the field?

Christian


On Saturday, August 29, 2015, <jaylee108...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> My company has recently upgrade to Review Board 2.0.18.
>
> We had a number of extensions; one of which was an output box for the
> results of some of our automated machinery.
>
> The extension was built with a review request fields hook and a
> `BaseEditableField`.
>
>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/extending/extensions/hooks/review-request-fields-hook/
>
> The `BaseEditableField` had an extra data field on the review request with
> name of `extension_result_output`.
>
> We used to do PUT requests to the review request resource API to update
> this extra data field. Unfortunately, this no longer works in Review Board
> 2.0.18 with this specific extra data field (I'm guessing this might be due
> to the fact that there is some code interaction with the extension that
> might prevent this).
>
> A PUT request to the review request resource API can update any other
> extra data field (which we are not using in extensions) except
> `extension_result_output`.
>
> Instead, `extension_result_ouptut` can get updated by the review request
> draft resource API, but this causes emails to get sent out on small 1 line
> updates to the output box. Additionally, the review request UI will get
> flooded with updates to the box itself. Is there any way to prevent this as
> it currently spams our users both by inbox and through the UI.
>
> What is causing this discrepancy between why certain extra data fields can
> get updated through the review request resource and others not? We run a
> fairly high traffic Review Board instance. What is a recommended, immediate
> solution and maybe long term solution that we might be able to implement?
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
>
>
> --
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
-- 
Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com
Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com

-- 
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