On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:33:43 PM UTC+2, se...@m2mobi.com wrote:
> Hello to both,
> I'm currently giving this a try as we'd really like to get it to connect.
> But both options are currently failing for the following reasons:
> * - hosting backend:*
> Despite the name suggesting something along those lines, the API is
> actually not at all compatible. (diffs are JSON objects and other silly
> unexpected things)
> So this is not a simple copy and paste and would someone who isn't as
> knowledgable in python (me) quite some time to complete.
> * - SCMTool API:*
> This initially seemed like it would be easier than the bitbucket server
> approach as bitbucket already uses it. But I can't seem to get the commit
> ID to be passed to the eventual function.
> For reference:
> If you have any insights on the best way to proceed, I'd be happy to hear
> Sean Molenaar
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:33:56 PM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>> Hi Heinz,
>> The proper solution would be to implement a hosting service backend for
>> this, or augment the existing one if the API is at all compatible.
>> It should be possible to extend the raw file URL stuff to take in a
>> commit ID, optionally, but it's a lot more work, as it impacts the SCMTool
>> API. Currently, only hosting services have any support for base_commit_id.
>> Christian Hammond
>> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
>> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Heinz Wiesinger <hmwie...@liwjatan.at>
>>> On Tuesday 02 February 2016 16:30:10 Heinz Wiesinger wrote:
>>> > Hi!
>>> > We're currently evaluating bitbucket server (formerly stash, not to be
>>> > confused with the bitbucket cloud hosting) and are having troubles
>>> coming up
>>> > with a usable raw file URL mask. What we found so far is this:
>>> > http://www.example.org/projects/KEY/repos/foo/browse/
>>> > >&raw
>>> > This works (with basic http authentication), but doesn't find the file
>>> > because it expects <revision> to be a commit hash, not an object hash.
>>> > far as I can see at the moment Bitbucket server doesn't seem to have a
>>> > to retrieve files by object hash.
>>> > Does anyone else have experience with Bitbucket server / Stash? Or is
>>> > a way to tell reviewboard to use commit hashes instead of object
>>> I came back to this after a while to try again, but no dice. Even looked
>>> the code to see how easy it would be to add support for base_commit_id to
>>> custom hosting repositories, but something seems to escape me.
>>> I filed a feature request for now
>>> (https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4195/). Like I mentioned
>>> there as
>>> well, I'm more than happy to supply a patch for this myself, if someone
>>> help me figure out what needs to be adapted :)
>>> Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
>>> Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
>>> 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:
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.