Re: What is best approach for setup with multiport, multiproject perforce repository
On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, Paul Scott psc...@vmware.com wrote: Onkar, We have a Review Board server that has reviews for 15 or so of our repositories (mostly Perforce, a couple SVN, and likely soon a couple Git servers once Git support makes it into a GA release). It works quite well for us, and there's really no need to go through the hassle of maintaining separate instances unless you have a fairly good reason. RB uses perforce server:port configuration so you can not differentiate between different projects when configuring repository. Do you have different projects same perforce server with common depot root? If yes then how do you deal with this situation? The one issue we've run into is code access rights. Generally speaking if someone has access to the Review Board server they can read all of the code there. If your repositories don't have the same read permissions everywhere this may be a problem for you. If your divisions aren't too granular you might be able to resolve this by using a couple extra Review Board instances. We have one RB instance for reviews for one large group of contractors who only have access to a particular repository. Restricted code access is not a concern for us right now. Was there any particular reason you were worrying about the single instance strategy? What we want is that every users dashboard view and email inbox be as clean as possible. So when a user a1 submits a review requests it should be visible only to people in his project. Also for those who are working on multiple projects they should be easily able to distinguish the review requests on dashboard. So I wanted to make sure if using different review groups on a single instance is the best way to go. I have used RB in my previous project for more than a year. But the project was small with only one repository and less than 20 developers. The situation will be different now. Onkar -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Re: About Installation of RBTools (post-review)
Hi, Christian Is that mean post-review will have to depend on easy_install? We are making reviewboard automation, so the post-review is installed on an Linux Server machine. But I have no root permission, And the python installed on Linux Server machine did not install easy_install at all. So I want a install method without denpendency on easy_install tools. I had down load the source code of post-review, But it seems that it can only avoid installation through Internet, It can't be independent of easy_install. Best Regards! On Feb 2, 1:35 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi, You should be able to control where easy_install is installing things by using the -d (--install-dir) and -s (--script-dir) options. I *think* the -s option will control where that script is installed, but I'm not 100% sure off-hand. By default, the scripts are installed in a system directory, like /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, which is how they're available anywhere. They're just basic wrappers that invoke the internal postreview.py script and do some version checks and stuff. Those scripts are actually generated by easy_install itself. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/1 qhlonline qhlonl...@163.com Hi, everybody. I would like to install post-review customly but not through Python easy_install. Easy_install will install post-view in the path PYTHONHOME/lib/site-packages/. And after easy_install, We can execute post-review command any where (If not in CVS directory, it will report error), I want this command to be executed anywhere too, But I really don't want that path. Can any body give me some suggestion? I don't quite clear the technology about python easy_install, How it makes post-review command executable any where in the system? Best Regards! -- 网易邮箱，没有垃圾邮件的免费电子邮箱！ http://www.yeah.net/?from=o1 -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Re: About Installation of RBTools (post-review)
easy_install is part of the Python Setuptools, which we very much require. Setuptools is currently the main standard in Python packaging, and you'll need it one way or another for installation. You should be able to download it and install it in a custom PYTHONHOME, though. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/2 JohnHenry qhlonl...@163.com Hi, Christian Is that mean post-review will have to depend on easy_install? We are making reviewboard automation, so the post-review is installed on an Linux Server machine. But I have no root permission, And the python installed on Linux Server machine did not install easy_install at all. So I want a install method without denpendency on easy_install tools. I had down load the source code of post-review, But it seems that it can only avoid installation through Internet, It can't be independent of easy_install. Best Regards! On Feb 2, 1:35 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi, You should be able to control where easy_install is installing things by using the -d (--install-dir) and -s (--script-dir) options. I *think* the -s option will control where that script is installed, but I'm not 100% sure off-hand. By default, the scripts are installed in a system directory, like /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, which is how they're available anywhere. They're just basic wrappers that invoke the internal postreview.py script and do some version checks and stuff. Those scripts are actually generated by easy_install itself. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/1 qhlonline qhlonl...@163.com Hi, everybody. I would like to install post-review customly but not through Python easy_install. Easy_install will install post-view in the path PYTHONHOME/lib/site-packages/. And after easy_install, We can execute post-review command any where (If not in CVS directory, it will report error), I want this command to be executed anywhere too, But I really don't want that path. Can any body give me some suggestion? I don't quite clear the technology about python easy_install, How it makes post-review command executable any where in the system? Best Regards! -- 网易邮箱，没有垃圾邮件的免费电子邮箱！ http://www.yeah.net/?from=o1 -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.comreviewboard%252bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
VHDL Syntax highlighting
All, I am running ReviewBoard 1.0.5.1 and am trying to review VHDL code. It does not seem to have any syntax highlighting. I though that the syntax highlighting was provided by Pygments which seems to suggest that it does support VHDL highlighting (.vhd) Am I correct in the use of Pygments and is there anyway to find out why VHDL code is not being syntax highlighted? Hope you can help Daniel Laird -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Re: About Installation of RBTools (post-review)
Hi John! Today I also made reviewboard install without root privileges. I made this compiling my own Python 2.5.5 to my home directory. Then I install easy_install for this private Python and all dependencies. This i my solution and until now works fine. Greetings from Poland! -- Jan Koprowski On Feb 2, 11:03 am, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: easy_install is part of the Python Setuptools, which we very much require. Setuptools is currently the main standard in Python packaging, and you'll need it one way or another for installation. You should be able to download it and install it in a custom PYTHONHOME, though. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/2 JohnHenry qhlonl...@163.com Hi, Christian Is that mean post-review will have to depend on easy_install? We are making reviewboard automation, so the post-review is installed on an Linux Server machine. But I have no root permission, And the python installed on Linux Server machine did not install easy_install at all. So I want a install method without denpendency on easy_install tools. I had down load the source code of post-review, But it seems that it can only avoid installation through Internet, It can't be independent of easy_install. Best Regards! On Feb 2, 1:35 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi, You should be able to control where easy_install is installing things by using the -d (--install-dir) and -s (--script-dir) options. I *think* the -s option will control where that script is installed, but I'm not 100% sure off-hand. By default, the scripts are installed in a system directory, like /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, which is how they're available anywhere. They're just basic wrappers that invoke the internal postreview.py script and do some version checks and stuff. Those scripts are actually generated by easy_install itself. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/1 qhlonline qhlonl...@163.com Hi, everybody. I would like to install post-review customly but not through Python easy_install. Easy_install will install post-view in the path PYTHONHOME/lib/site-packages/. And after easy_install, We can execute post-review command any where (If not in CVS directory, it will report error), I want this command to be executed anywhere too, But I really don't want that path. Can any body give me some suggestion? I don't quite clear the technology about python easy_install, How it makes post-review command executable any where in the system? Best Regards! -- 网易邮箱，没有垃圾邮件的免费电子邮箱！ http://www.yeah.net/?from=o1 -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr oups.com reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.comreviewboard%252bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr oups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Re: Post review with combination of binary + txt file does not work
Any info. on this one? Thanks ! On Jan 26, 6:50 pm, Kunjal kunjal.par...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Chris, With RB 1.0.5.1, when someone post the review with 1 binary file + 1 txt file, RB should filter out the binary file but txt file should be able to get reviewed in RB. We are getting below message when the user look at the RB web after posting review. When I test RB, I could post review with few binary files + few text file and it filter out binary files correctly. Why this issue re-surfacing now? Does it depend on type of file? The files we have are called .spr file and they are marked as BINARY in perforce. The patch to 'C:/Builds/Mobcom/sysDev/21331/MMI_2/msp/stack/hedge/sdt/ usimap.spr' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou/tmp4nYJKO Hunk #1 succeeded at 4297 (offset 187 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 4367 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 9821 (offset 335 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 9538 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 16413 (offset 608 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 17689 (offset 147 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 21659 (offset 760 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 24243 (offset 586 lines). Hunk #9 succeeded at 25320 (offset 809 lines). Hunk #10 succeeded at 25777 (offset 625 lines). patch: malformed patch at line 171: ]]][ Traceback (most recent call last): File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ views.py, line 153, in view_diff interdiffset, highlighting, True) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 623, in get_diff_files large_data=True) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/Djblets-0.5.6-py2.5.egg/djblets/util/misc.py, line 162, in cache_memoize data = lookup_callable() File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 622, in lambda enable_syntax_highlighting), File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 345, in get_chunks new = get_patched_file(old, filediff) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 261, in get_patched_file return patch(filediff.diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 129, in patch (filename, tempdir, patch_output)) Exception: The patch to 'C:/Builds/Mobcom/sysDev/21331/MMI_2/msp/stack/ hedge/sdt/usimap.spr' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou/tmp4nYJKO Hunk #1 succeeded at 4297 (offset 187 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 4367 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 9821 (offset 335 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 9538 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 16413 (offset 608 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 17689 (offset 147 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 21659 (offset 760 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 24243 (offset 586 lines). Hunk #9 succeeded at 25320 (offset 809 lines). Hunk #10 succeeded at 25777 (offset 625 lines). patch: malformed patch at line 171: ]]][ -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
Re: ReviewBoard Error while posting review for GIT
If i try with REVIEWBOARD_URL = 'None' (Below is the debug output)
It looks like the URL is correct now. But I am still getting error.
mob-rb-test{kaparikh}22: postreview.py -d
svn info
git rev-parse --git-dir
git svn info
git svn --version
git config --get svn-remote.svn.url
git remote show origin
repository info: Path:
git://mobcom-git.sj.broadcom.com/git_repos/repo_mydroid/vendor.git, Base
path: , Supports changesets: False
git config --get reviewboard.url
git diff --no-color --full-index donut
Looking for 'mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com /' cookie in
/home/kaparikh/.post-review-cookies.txt
Loaded valid cookie -- no login required
Attempting to create review request for None
_make_url: path = api/json/reviewrequests/new/
_make_url:app = /
_make_url: joined URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/
_make_url: Resulting URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/
HTTP POSTing to
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
{'repository_path':
'git://mobcom-git.sj.broadcom.com/git_repos/repo_mydroid/vendor.git'}
Review request created
Uploading diff, size: 867
_make_url: path = api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/
_make_url:app = /
_make_url: joined URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/
_make_url: Resulting URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/
HTTP POSTing to
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/: {}
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en lang=en
head
title500 - Internal Server Error | Review Board/title
/head
body
h1Something broke! (Error 500)/h1
p
It appears something broke when you tried to go to here. This is
either
a bug in Review Board or a server configuration error. Please
report
this to your administrator.
/p
/body
/title
Unable to access
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/.
The host path may be invalid
HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
Also, I get up to above error by replacing master branch to donut in
the post-review.py script.
If I do not change this, I get different error which is like:
[[
mob-rb-test{kaparikh}30: postreview.py -d
svn info
git rev-parse --git-dir
git svn info
git svn --version
git config --get svn-remote.svn.url
git remote show origin
repository info: Path:
git://mobcom-git.sj.broadcom.com/git_repos/repo_mydroid/vendor.git, Base
path: , Supports changesets: False
git config --get reviewboard.url
git diff --no-color --full-index master
Failed to execute command: ['git', 'diff', '--no-color', '--full-
index', 'master']
fatal: ambiguous argument 'master': unknown revision or path not in
the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions
]]
On Jan 28, 3:05 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
You shouldn't need to set REVIEWBOARD_URL in postreview.py. It's pretty much
intended for when there's no alternate way to configure the URL and a
company wants to set a single URL company-wide. However, a much better
option is either the per-repository configuration (such as using git config)
or the .reviewboardrc file. If you set REVIEWBOARD_URL, it will override the
other configuration types.
I will point out that in the future, postreview.py will require other code
in RBTools, so copying out postreview.py won't work. Probably after the 0.2
release.
At this point, I'd say we should add some debugging information to
postreview.py. Search for the _make_url function, and change it to:
print _make_url: path = %s % path
app = urlparse(self.url)[2]
print _make_url: app = %s % app
if path[0] == '/':
url = urljoin(self.url, app[:-1] + path)
else:
url = urljoin(self.url, app + path)
print _make_url: joined URL = %s % url
if not url.startswith('http'):
url = 'http://%s' % url
print _make_url: Resulting URL = %s % url
return url
That'll hopefully help us see where it's going wrong.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Kunjal kunjal.par...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is what I did.
1. I did download RB Tools nightly ( RBTools-0.2beta3.dev-20100125 )
in to my windows machine.
2. I modify REVIEWBOARD_URL in post-review.py. That is the all change
I did.
3. I copy post.review.py to linux box. ( I am not sure whether
complete RB Tools needs install or only copy of post-review.py from RB
Tools is necessary)
4. I clone the git repository.
5. I configure new repo. in RB Web Admin. (Repository Path =
Re: Post review with combination of binary + txt file does not work
Hi, Sorry, missed the previous e-mail. On Perforce, we actually use 'diff' itself to determine if it's a binary file. We do this by running diff on the old file and the new modified file. If it tells us that it's a binary file, then we mark it as such, but otherwise we treat it as a plain text file and include it. It sounds like this is failing, and that there's just enough in there to make it think it's a text file. It sounds like we need better checking here. I don't know if we can query whether it's a binary file or not from Perforce easily enough, but if we can, then you should be able to patch post-review to do this check first and not attempt the diff. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Kunjal kunjal.par...@gmail.com wrote: Any info. on this one? Thanks ! On Jan 26, 6:50 pm, Kunjal kunjal.par...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Chris, With RB 1.0.5.1, when someone post the review with 1 binary file + 1 txt file, RB should filter out the binary file but txt file should be able to get reviewed in RB. We are getting below message when the user look at the RB web after posting review. When I test RB, I could post review with few binary files + few text file and it filter out binary files correctly. Why this issue re-surfacing now? Does it depend on type of file? The files we have are called .spr file and they are marked as BINARY in perforce. The patch to 'C:/Builds/Mobcom/sysDev/21331/MMI_2/msp/stack/hedge/sdt/ usimap.spr' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou/tmp4nYJKO Hunk #1 succeeded at 4297 (offset 187 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 4367 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 9821 (offset 335 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 9538 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 16413 (offset 608 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 17689 (offset 147 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 21659 (offset 760 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 24243 (offset 586 lines). Hunk #9 succeeded at 25320 (offset 809 lines). Hunk #10 succeeded at 25777 (offset 625 lines). patch: malformed patch at line 171: ]]][ Traceback (most recent call last): File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ views.py, line 153, in view_diff interdiffset, highlighting, True) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 623, in get_diff_files large_data=True) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/Djblets-0.5.6-py2.5.egg/djblets/util/misc.py, line 162, in cache_memoize data = lookup_callable() File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 622, in lambda enable_syntax_highlighting), File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 345, in get_chunks new = get_patched_file(old, filediff) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 261, in get_patched_file return patch(filediff.diff, buffer, filediff.dest_file) File /projects/mob_reviewboard/xampp/1.6.4-brcm-v2/lib/python2.5/ site-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.5.1-py2.5.egg/reviewboard/diffviewer/ diffutils.py, line 129, in patch (filename, tempdir, patch_output)) Exception: The patch to 'C:/Builds/Mobcom/sysDev/21331/MMI_2/msp/stack/ hedge/sdt/usimap.spr' didn't apply cleanly. The temporary files have been left in '/tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou' for debugging purposes. `patch` returned: patching file /tmp/reviewboard.GAdWou/tmp4nYJKO Hunk #1 succeeded at 4297 (offset 187 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 4367 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 9821 (offset 335 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 9538 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 16413 (offset 608 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 17689 (offset 147 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 21659 (offset 760 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 24243 (offset 586 lines). Hunk #9 succeeded at 25320 (offset 809 lines). Hunk #10 succeeded at 25777 (offset 625 lines). patch: malformed patch at line 171: ]]][ -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: ReviewBoard Error while posting review for GIT
Hmm okay, well at least it's talking to the server now. If you check your
server log file, you should be able to see some exception information that
says what's generated that 500 error. If not, then temporarily setting DEBUG
= True in your site's conf/settings_local.py will display that exception
information in place of the 500 error. Either way, that should help to
figure out where it's failing and hopefully what's going wrong.
One thing that could be causing it, though, is your Review Board repository
entry for your Git repository. Do you have it just referencing your remote
git:// URL, or is Path actually pointing to a local Git checkout? There's no
concept of grabbing individual files from a remote Git repository, so you
need either a local clone accessible by Review Board, or if you're using the
1.1/1.5 alphas/nightlies you can specify a special URL for checking out a
raw file from a Git web front-end such as cgit or gitweb.
Unless the Git guys someday extend the protocol to fetch an individual file
by revision from an upstream repository without a local checkout, this is
the best we can do.
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Kunjal kunjal.par...@gmail.com wrote:
If i try with REVIEWBOARD_URL = 'None' (Below is the debug output)
It looks like the URL is correct now. But I am still getting error.
mob-rb-test{kaparikh}22: postreview.py -d
svn info
git rev-parse --git-dir
git svn info
git svn --version
git config --get svn-remote.svn.url
git remote show origin
repository info: Path: git://
mobcom-git.sj.broadcom.com/git_repos/repo_mydroid/vendor.git, Base path: ,
Supports changesets: False
git config --get reviewboard.url
git diff --no-color --full-index donut
Looking for 'mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com /' cookie in
/home/kaparikh/.post-review-cookies.txt
Loaded valid cookie -- no login required
Attempting to create review request for None
_make_url: path = api/json/reviewrequests/new/
_make_url:app = /
_make_url: joined URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/
_make_url: Resulting URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/
HTTP POSTing to
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/new/:
{'repository_path': 'git://
mobcom-git.sj.broadcom.com/git_repos/repo_mydroid/vendor.git'}
Review request created
Uploading diff, size: 867
_make_url: path = api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/
_make_url:app = /
_make_url: joined URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/
_make_url: Resulting URL =
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/
HTTP POSTing to
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/:
{}
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en lang=en
head
title500 - Internal Server Error | Review Board/title
/head
body
h1Something broke! (Error 500)/h1
p
It appears something broke when you tried to go to here. This is
either
a bug in Review Board or a server configuration error. Please
report
this to your administrator.
/p
/body
/title
Unable to access
http://mob-rb-test.sj.broadcom.com/api/json/reviewrequests/30/diff/new/.
The host path may be invalid
HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
Also, I get up to above error by replacing master branch to donut in
the post-review.py script.
If I do not change this, I get different error which is like:
[[
mob-rb-test{kaparikh}30: postreview.py -d
svn info
git rev-parse --git-dir
git svn info
git svn --version
git config --get svn-remote.svn.url
git remote show origin
repository info: Path: git://
mobcom-git.sj.broadcom.com/git_repos/repo_mydroid/vendor.git, Base path: ,
Supports changesets: False
git config --get reviewboard.url
git diff --no-color --full-index master
Failed to execute command: ['git', 'diff', '--no-color', '--full-
index', 'master']
fatal: ambiguous argument 'master': unknown revision or path not in
the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions
]]
On Jan 28, 3:05 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote:
You shouldn't need to set REVIEWBOARD_URL in postreview.py. It's pretty
much
intended for when there's no alternate way to configure the URL and a
company wants to set a single URL company-wide. However, a much better
option is either the per-repository configuration (such as using git
config)
or the .reviewboardrc file. If you set REVIEWBOARD_URL, it will override
the
other configuration types.
I will point out that in the future, postreview.py will require other
code
Re: About Installation of RBTools (post-review)
Thanks, I know now. Regards! On Feb 3, 4:28 am, Jan Koprowski jan.koprow...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John! Today I also made reviewboard install without root privileges. I made this compiling my own Python 2.5.5 to my home directory. Then I install easy_install for this private Python and all dependencies. This i my solution and until now works fine. Greetings from Poland! -- Jan Koprowski On Feb 2, 11:03 am, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: easy_install is part of the Python Setuptools, which we very much require. Setuptools is currently the main standard in Python packaging, and you'll need it one way or another for installation. You should be able to download it and install it in a custom PYTHONHOME, though. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/2 JohnHenry qhlonl...@163.com Hi, Christian Is that mean post-review will have to depend on easy_install? We are making reviewboard automation, so the post-review is installed on an Linux Server machine. But I have no root permission, And the python installed on Linux Server machine did not install easy_install at all. So I want a install method without denpendency on easy_install tools. I had down load the source code of post-review, But it seems that it can only avoid installation through Internet, It can't be independent of easy_install. Best Regards! On Feb 2, 1:35 pm, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi, You should be able to control where easy_install is installing things by using the -d (--install-dir) and -s (--script-dir) options. I *think* the -s option will control where that script is installed, but I'm not 100% sure off-hand. By default, the scripts are installed in a system directory, like /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, which is how they're available anywhere. They're just basic wrappers that invoke the internal postreview.py script and do some version checks and stuff. Those scripts are actually generated by easy_install itself. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board -http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. -http://www.vmware.com 2010/2/1 qhlonline qhlonl...@163.com Hi, everybody. I would like to install post-review customly but not through Python easy_install. Easy_install will install post-view in the path PYTHONHOME/lib/site-packages/. And after easy_install, We can execute post-review command any where (If not in CVS directory, it will report error), I want this command to be executed anywhere too, But I really don't want that path. Can any body give me some suggestion? I don't quite clear the technology about python easy_install, How it makes post-review command executable any where in the system? Best Regards! -- 网易邮箱，没有垃圾邮件的免费电子邮箱！ http://www.yeah.net/?from=o1 -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr oups.com reviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.comreviewboard%252bunsubscr...@googlegr-oups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know athttp://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegr oups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
