RB 1.7.7.1 Internal Server Error.
We recently upgraded from RB 1.7 Beta 1 to 1.7.7.1 and are now getting
Internal Server Errors on one repository, see below for the traceback.
- Posting a review creates an empty review, i.e. no diffs.
- I can create reviews with diffs in other repositories. Only one repo (so
far) that is failing.
- I checked all the repos and all files and directories are owned by
www-data:www-data (the apache user).
- Tried a
sudo -u www-data hg diff --rev 4
which worked fine
Not sure what else to try or even look at. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
John
Some config info:
Server: Ubuntu 10.04.4
Python 2.6.5
Django 1.4.5 (from the traceback
Repo: Mercurial 2.6.1
Client: Ubuntu 12.04
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/cache.py,
line 89, in _wrapped_view_func
response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/vary.py,
line 19, in inner_func
response = func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Djblets-0.7.14-py2.6.egg/djblets/webapi/resources.py,
line 426, in __call__
method = request.POST.get('_method', kwargs.get('_method', method))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 180, in _get_post
self._load_post_and_files()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 368, in _load_post_and_files
self._post, self._files = self.parse_file_upload(self.META, data)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 328, in parse_file_upload
return parser.parse()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 194, in parse
for chunk in field_stream:
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 449, in next
for bytes in stream:
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 377, in next
data = self.flo.read(self.chunk_size)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 392, in read
return self._stream.read(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 104, in read
result = self.buffer + self._read_limited(size - len(self.buffer))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 92, in _read_limited
result = self.stream.read(size)
IOError: request data read error
WSGIRequest
path:/reviews/api/review-requests/866/diffs/,
GET:QueryDict: {},
POST:could not parse,
COOKIES:{'rbsessionid': '1c1195653dd251379c08f10e87179e3e'},
META:{'CONTENT_LENGTH': '5041123',
'CONTENT_TYPE': 'multipart/form-data;
boundary=127.0.1.1.1000.3988.1369429444.007.3',
'DOCUMENT_ROOT': '/fmcapps',
'GATEWAY_INTERFACE': 'CGI/1.1',
'HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING': 'identity',
'HTTP_CONNECTION': 'close',
'HTTP_COOKIE': 'rbsessionid=1c1195653dd251379c08f10e87179e3e',
'HTTP_HOST': 'cm5',
'HTTP_USER_AGENT': 'Python-urllib/2.7',
'PATH': '/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin',
'PATH_INFO': u'/reviews/api/review-requests/866/diffs/',
'PATH_TRANSLATED':
'/fmcapps/reviewboard/htdocs/reviewboard.wsgi/reviews/api/review-requests/866/diffs/',
'QUERY_STRING': '',
'REMOTE_ADDR': '192.168.169.99',
'REMOTE_PORT': '45899',
'REQUEST_METHOD': 'POST',
'REQUEST_URI': '/reviews/api/review-requests/866/diffs/',
'SCRIPT_FILENAME': '/fmcapps/reviewboard/htdocs/reviewboard.wsgi',
'SCRIPT_NAME': u'',
'SERVER_ADDR': '192.168.171.238',
'SERVER_ADMIN': 'webmaster@localhost',
'SERVER_NAME': 'cm5',
'SERVER_PORT': '80',
'SERVER_PROTOCOL': 'HTTP/1.1',
'SERVER_SIGNATURE': 'addressApache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at cm5 Port
80/address\n',
'SERVER_SOFTWARE': 'Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu)',
'mod_wsgi.application_group': 'cm5|',
'mod_wsgi.callable_object': 'application',
'mod_wsgi.listener_host': '',
'mod_wsgi.listener_port': '80',
'mod_wsgi.process_group': '',
'mod_wsgi.reload_mechanism': '0',
'mod_wsgi.script_reloading': '1',
'mod_wsgi.version': (2, 8),
'wsgi.errors': mod_wsgi.Log object at 0x7f5025a759f0,
'wsgi.file_wrapper': built-in
Re: RB 1.7.7.1 Internal Server Error.
/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 377, in next
data = self.flo.read(self.chunk_size)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 392, in read
return self._stream.read(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 104, in read
result = self.buffer + self._read_limited(size - len(self.buffer))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 92, in _read_limited
result = self.stream.read(size)
IOError: request data read error
cm5@cm5:/fmcapps/log$
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote:
Hi,
Can you check to see what reviewboard.log says when doing this?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:25 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote:
We recently upgraded from RB 1.7 Beta 1 to 1.7.7.1 and are now getting
Internal Server Errors on one repository, see below for the traceback.
- Posting a review creates an empty review, i.e. no diffs.
- I can create reviews with diffs in other repositories. Only one repo
(so far) that is failing.
- I checked all the repos and all files and directories are owned by
www-data:www-data (the apache user).
- Tried a
sudo -u www-data hg diff --rev 4
which worked fine
Not sure what else to try or even look at. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
John
Some config info:
Server: Ubuntu 10.04.4
Python 2.6.5
Django 1.4.5 (from the traceback
Repo: Mercurial 2.6.1
Client: Ubuntu 12.04
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/cache.py,
line 89, in _wrapped_view_func
response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/vary.py,
line 19, in inner_func
response = func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Djblets-0.7.14-py2.6.egg/djblets/webapi/resources.py,
line 426, in __call__
method = request.POST.get('_method', kwargs.get('_method', method))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 180, in _get_post
self._load_post_and_files()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 368, in _load_post_and_files
self._post, self._files = self.parse_file_upload(self.META, data)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 328, in parse_file_upload
return parser.parse()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 194, in parse
for chunk in field_stream:
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 449, in next
for bytes in stream:
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 377, in next
data = self.flo.read(self.chunk_size)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 392, in read
return self._stream.read(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 104, in read
result = self.buffer + self._read_limited(size - len(self.buffer))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 92, in _read_limited
result = self.stream.read(size)
IOError: request data read error
WSGIRequest
path:/reviews/api/review-requests/866/diffs/,
GET:QueryDict: {},
POST:could not parse,
COOKIES:{'rbsessionid': '1c1195653dd251379c08f10e87179e3e'},
META:{'CONTENT_LENGTH': '5041123',
'CONTENT_TYPE': 'multipart/form-data;
boundary=127.0.1.1.1000.3988.1369429444.007.3',
'DOCUMENT_ROOT': '/fmcapps',
'GATEWAY_INTERFACE': 'CGI/1.1',
'HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING': 'identity
Re: RB 1.7.7.1 Internal Server Error.
No, it's quite small:
hg diff -r 4 | wc
106 5393737
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote:
How big is the diff you're trying to upload? Could it be just too large
and timing out?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Christian,
I fixed the directory owner to be -R www-data:www-data (it was incorrect).
I deleted the current reviewboard.log
I pressed Save in the Logging Settings
I redid the hg postreview
Here is the complete log
cm5@cm5:/fmcapps/log$ cat reviewboard.log
2013-05-24 21:36:58,071 - INFO - - Reloading logging settings
2013-05-24 21:37:23,119 - ERROR - - Exception thrown for user jarrizza
at http://cm5/reviews/api/review-requests/870/diffs/
request data read error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/cache.py,
line 89, in _wrapped_view_func
response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/vary.py,
line 19, in inner_func
response = func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Djblets-0.7.14-py2.6.egg/djblets/webapi/resources.py,
line 426, in __call__
method = request.POST.get('_method', kwargs.get('_method', method))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 180, in _get_post
self._load_post_and_files()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 368, in _load_post_and_files
self._post, self._files = self.parse_file_upload(self.META, data)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 328, in parse_file_upload
return parser.parse()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 194, in parse
for chunk in field_stream:
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 449, in next
for bytes in stream:
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 316, in next
output = self._producer.next()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/multipartparser.py,
line 377, in next
data = self.flo.read(self.chunk_size)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 392, in read
return self._stream.read(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 104, in read
result = self.buffer + self._read_limited(size - len(self.buffer))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 92, in _read_limited
result = self.stream.read(size)
IOError: request data read error
2013-05-24 21:37:23,124 - ERROR - jarrizza -
/reviews/api/review-requests/870/diffs/ - Internal Server Error:
/reviews/api/review-requests/870/diffs/
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/cache.py,
line 89, in _wrapped_view_func
response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/views/decorators/vary.py,
line 19, in inner_func
response = func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Djblets-0.7.14-py2.6.egg/djblets/webapi/resources.py,
line 426, in __call__
method = request.POST.get('_method', kwargs.get('_method', method))
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/wsgi.py,
line 180, in _get_post
self._load_post_and_files()
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 368, in _load_post_and_files
self._post, self._files = self.parse_file_upload(self.META, data)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.6.egg/django/http/__init__.py,
line 328
Re: Can I archive ancient reviews?
Here's how I did it: 1) I created a brand new instance of ReviewBoard, updated to the latest version. Set that up and developers started using it. 2) based on a reply from this list (thanks again), I iterated over the review id (check the URL for it) and used wget to retrieve the individual review pages from the old RB instance. 3) I saved the resulting files in a zip, backed up the zip, put it on a couple of backup servers, added a MS Word doc around it and put it into our documentation system, etc. If I really really needed to go back to an old review, it's out there, somewhere. 4) eventually I tore down the old RB instance Pros: - I got a fresh new install of RB with the latest and greatest version out of the deal - I could set up the new RB at my leisure. I tested the heck out of it, make sure it was all working fine before the dev team cut over to the new instance. - Almost no interruption to the developers. On Sunday evening, I turned off access to the old RB and sent out an email for them to start using the new RB server on Monday morning. They did have to change their hgrc files (we use Mercurial) to point to the new server for hg postreview to work correctly. - cruft in the old RB was magically gone from the new RB. Dead projects - gone, old users - gone, etc. etc. - Backups for the new RB site are now much faster and smaller since the DB is clean - I could archive the old reviews at my leisure. Since that server was not in use anymore, no worries about treading in a live, production environment. I set up a script to archive the reviews, ran it and tweaked it several times until I got the output just the way I wanted it. - Total cost was very low: $750 for a new server box; we use Ubuntu, so no OS costs or licensing issues. But I needed an additional Hudson slave anyway, so I recycled the old RB server. Therefore, all in all total cost was $0. Cons: - had to manually re-setup the new RB instance with repos, users, etc. A command line setup for site-specific info would have helped, but manually it only took me an hour or so. - no mechanism to restore the archived reviews into an RB site. Not really an issue for me, but might be one for your site. I guess you could backup the matching SQL DB too, and backup/store both the web pages and the SQL contents. - the archived web pages have html links, etc in them. I briefly thought of writing a script to clean those out, but the value of the archived pages wouldn't increase substantially by going through that work. And the risk the script would remove something important was slim yet possible. I'm betting that no-one (ever) will want to see those reviews again. But in the extreme off-chance they do (e.g. for an audit), the archived pages have key information that would most likely be needed. So comparing all the risk factors, leaving the html links etc in the archived reviews is the lowest risk strategy. John On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Chris Tooley cto...@gmail.com wrote: If like to mark them in some way so that they no longer show up in the UI On Oct 18, 2012 3:03 AM, Christian Hammond chi...@chipx86.com wrote: I'm sorry, I missed the original e-mail. What do you mean by archiving? We never delete anything from the database and have no capability to archive from the database to a file and restore from it, if that's what you mean. Christian -- 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 --- 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/groups/opt_out.
installing 1.7beta2
Sorry for the newbie question, but could someone please post the command
line to install beta2 over beta1?
I've tried:
$ sudo easy_install -U ReviewBoard
Searching for ReviewBoard
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/ReviewBoard/
Reading http://www.reviewboard.org/
Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.6/
Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.5/
Reading http://www.review-board.org/
Reading http://downloads.review-board.org/releases/
Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/
Reading http://downloads.review-board.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/
Best match: ReviewBoard 1.7beta1
Processing ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg
ReviewBoard 1.7beta1 is already the active version in easy-install.pth
Installing rb-site script to /usr/local/bin
Installing rbssh script to /usr/local/bin
and
$ sudo easy_install -U ReviewBoard==1.7beta2
Searching for ReviewBoard==1.7beta2
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/ReviewBoard/
Reading http://www.reviewboard.org/
Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.6/
Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.5/
Reading http://www.review-board.org/
Reading http://downloads.review-board.org/releases/
Reading http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/
Reading http://downloads.review-board.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.0/
No local packages or download links found for ReviewBoard==1.7beta2
error: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('ReviewBoard==1.7beta2')
I
--
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: installing 1.7beta2
FYI $ python -V Python 2.6.5 On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@gmail.comwrote: Doh. I'm realizing now that those command lines weren't including -f http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.7 Ok, I'll give it a shot. These aren't stable releases, so you have to opt in to those install paths. Word of warning: There are some issues with bits of the UI elements in beta 2. Which bits? -- 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: Internal error - permissions on search-index directory
Thanks!
Any way to kick off the search index task (or whatever it is that uses that
directory), so I check the permissions, etc are set correctly?
PS there are a couple more issues, very low priority:
- clicking on the links in the System Information area (lower left hand
pane) gives me 404 errors, e.g. clicking on indexed Search: 404 The
requested URL /admin/settings/general/ was not found on this server.
- In the System Settings | General tab, there is a Server: field. I fill
it in, click Save, it accepts it and then it blanks the field again.
John
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote:
Probably your-site-dir/data/search-index
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote:
In the General Settings tab, the Enable Search is checked and the search
index directory is:
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/search-index
What should it say?
John
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote:
That never should have been the path in the first place. It should be in
your site's data/ directory. What does the setting for it say?
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote:
Received this error on Reviewboard 1.7 Beta 1 (see below for the full
traceback):
JavaError: java.io.IOException: Cannot create directory:
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/search-index
This was a fresh install (not an upgrade) on to an Ubuntu 10.04 server.
You can see here the parent directory is owned by root and is part of
the staff group. So the mkdir should have worked:
$ pwd
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard
$ ls -al
total 152
drwxr-sr-x 18 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 .
drwxr-sr-x 5 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 ..
drwxr-sr-x 5 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 accounts
drwxr-sr-x 5 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 admin
drwxr-sr-x 2 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 attachments
drwxr-sr-x 3 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 changedescs
drwxr-sr-x 3 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 cmdline
drwxr-sr-x 5 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 diffviewer
drwxr-sr-x 3 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 extensions
drwxr-sr-x 2 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 hostingsvcs
drwxr-sr-x 5 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 htdocs
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 2382 2012-09-04 08:51 __init__.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 2781 2012-09-04 08:51 __init__.pyc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 6337 2012-09-04 08:51 manage.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 5205 2012-09-04 08:51 manage.pyc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 179 2012-09-04 08:51 nose.cfg
drwxr-sr-x 2 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 notifications
drwxr-sr-x 7 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 reviews
drwxr-sr-x 6 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 scmtools
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 10741 2012-09-04 08:51 settings.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 9540 2012-09-04 08:51 settings.pyc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff61 2012-09-04 08:51 signals.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 269 2012-09-04 08:51 signals.pyc
drwxr-sr-x 4 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 site
drwxr-sr-x 3 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 static
drwxr-sr-x 11 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 templates
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 4774 2012-09-04 08:51 test.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 4051 2012-09-04 08:51 test.pyc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 3876 2012-09-04 08:51 urls.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root staff 2860 2012-09-04 08:51 urls.pyc
drwxr-sr-x 2 root staff 4096 2012-09-04 08:51 webapi
Any suggestions on what I need to do?
John
==
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.4.1-py2.6.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py,
line 111, in get_response
response = callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/accounts/decorators.py,
line 22, in _check
return view_func(*args, **kwargs)
File
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/reviews/views.py,
line 1409, in search
store = lucene.FSDirectory.getDirectory(index_file, False)
JavaError: java.io.IOException: Cannot create directory:
/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7beta1-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/search-index
WSGIRequest
path:/reviews/r/search/,
GET:QueryDict: {u'q': [u'uicat']},
POST:QueryDict: {},
COOKIES:{'collapsediffs': 'True', 'rbsessionid':
'5224bb50ddf053d9791305af2465b972'},
META:{'DOCUMENT_ROOT': '/fmcapps',
'GATEWAY_INTERFACE': 'CGI/1.1
submit/close review by non-creator?
We are testing v1.7 and have noticed that a non-creator of a code review can't submit a review. - I've created an Auth group called default - all users belong to default - default has all permissions enabled except for some admin ones like Can add a site etc - specifically default has reviews | review | Can change status and Can submit as another user enabled What do I need to do to allow say a Team Lead to close a Code review of a developer? John -- 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: submit/close review by non-creator?
Hi Christian, I added the Can Change Status directly to a user. I then created a CR and added her as a reviewer. She went to her Dashboard and she could see the Submitted entry in the Close drop-down. She could press it and RB seemed to respond to it but the CR did not Submit/Close. We tried refreshing the page on her machine and also looking at it from another machine as well, so caching was not the issue. When I tried the Submitted (as the CR creator), it worked as expected. John On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Also make sure the browser doesn't have the page cached. You may just be seeing older versions of the page. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Can change status should do what you want. Try applying it directly on the user and see if that works. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: We are testing v1.7 and have noticed that a non-creator of a code review can't submit a review. - I've created an Auth group called default - all users belong to default - default has all permissions enabled except for some admin ones like Can add a site etc - specifically default has reviews | review | Can change status and Can submit as another user enabled What do I need to do to allow say a Team Lead to close a Code review of a developer? John -- 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 -- 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 -- 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: submit/close review by non-creator?
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: This is 1.7 beta 1, and not upstream git master, right? Yes. 1.7 beta 1 I'd be interested in seeing what Chrome/Firebug says the API response was in the Network tab. Sorry, no idea what you're saying. I am using chrome but what/where is the Network tab? -- 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: submit/close review by non-creator?
Ok. There was a line PUT 403 Forbidden in the log at that point. On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Press Control-Shift-I. A developer console should come up. There will be a Network tab. Open that, reload the page, and then try the request. Though I just realized, it'll reload the page. So first, look for the little solid black dot with the tooltip Preserve Log upon navigation and click it, then make the request. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: This is 1.7 beta 1, and not upstream git master, right? Yes. 1.7 beta 1 I'd be interested in seeing what Chrome/Firebug says the API response was in the Network tab. Sorry, no idea what you're saying. I am using chrome but what/where is the Network tab? -- 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 -- 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 -- 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: submit/close review by non-creator?
Will do. Thanks On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hmm.. I'm not sure what's going on. It's possible something is broken with 1.7 beta 1 and has been fixed since. I don't recall our unit tests for this breaking, though. There will be a beta 2 pretty soon. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow. Maybe give that a try? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: Ok. There was a line PUT 403 Forbidden in the log at that point. On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Press Control-Shift-I. A developer console should come up. There will be a Network tab. Open that, reload the page, and then try the request. Though I just realized, it'll reload the page. So first, look for the little solid black dot with the tooltip Preserve Log upon navigation and click it, then make the request. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: This is 1.7 beta 1, and not upstream git master, right? Yes. 1.7 beta 1 I'd be interested in seeing what Chrome/Firebug says the API response was in the Network tab. Sorry, no idea what you're saying. I am using chrome but what/where is the Network tab? -- 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 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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
extensions architecture
Christian, We've been looking at 1.7 beta 1 and I was wondering if you could give an outline if the extensions are going to allow us to change/add workflows to RB? For example, I'm wondering if it is going to be possible to: - Only allow certain individuals (e.g. project leads), and disallow the creator off a review, to close/submit it. This may require additional permissions in the database. So: a) will extensions allow the creation of custom permissions? b) will extensions allow hooks into various built-in events (e.g. close/submit) - We'd like to track some states a diff can go through. You have some of what we want in the Issues field, but we'd like to add more to that. So: c) will extensions allow us to add a field to each diff in each revision? And of course, allow users to interact with it via widget? d) will extensions allow us to replace or hide built-in functions? John -- 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
turn off issues feature?
We need a positive way to indicate that a review was done. Currently we use a manual process of adding an OK comment to each code review by each reviewer. When all comments are OK, then we know the review passed. This process worked ok in 1.0.7 but fails for us in the current version because the new issues feature now flags every comment as an issue when, in our case, they are not. So a couple of questions: 1) is there a way to turn off the issues feature? 2) is there a way to have the issues feature exclude comments with a given pattern e.g. /^OK$/i ? John -- 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: turn off issues feature?
Christian, Thanks for the response. We're going to try a couple of things on our workflow tomorrow to see if we can leverage the issues feature. You've brought up some good points and perhaps we can use them to our advantage. BTW we found the checkbox Always open an issue when comment box opens in My Account Preferences -- thanks for the heads up! I want to clarify something though. We use OK to indicate one of two things: 1) OK I've reviewed this file and found nothing wrong with it 2) OK I've reviewed your response to a previous comment and it's now good/fixed. We'll double-check it out tomorrow but it looks like the issues feature works very well for the second item but might be lacking for the first. The first item may seem unnecessary to some folks but we live in an FDA regulated environment and so we would like to give a positive, active indication that a reviewer has reviewed each and every file. The OK is not passive, it's active. The reviewer has to do *something* visible to show they've actually performed the review of a file. On the other hand, the passive workflow (i.e. no OK comment) leaves some ambiguity as to whether the reviewer a) forgot to review the file or b) reviewed it but found nothing wrong. The OK removes that ambiguity. John On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi John, The issues feature is actually meant to replace having to say OK or Fixed. It's just a way of saying, This needs to be done and for the other person to respond saying It's done! Going forward, we're building on this through the introduction of an issue summary table in 1.7 (which shows what issues are still pending, so you have a To Do list of sorts), and we'll also be showing the fixed issues on every diff update. Now, we're also introducing a per-user option to default that Open An Issue checkbox to unchecked for new comments. There's no site-wide default, but I suppose that could be added. Still, I think issues actually integrates into your workflow even nicer. Just open the issues, and instead of OK, hit Fixed. The effect is the same, but you'll gain some benefits going forward. Christian -- 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: How to get people to close off reviews
Do #1 with a small change: send the email to everyone on the team. The nag factor along with the peer pressure factor works very well. On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Tucker j...@gmail.com wrote: I actually have a similar problem. Since there's no connection between a commit and an open review (by design and it makes sense), people tend to leave their reviews open. I have yet to take the time to do this but my long term plan is two fold: 1. Nag System Stale reviews (over 48 hours... or something to be decided later) will result in an email to the author. If there have been review comments posted, that will be called out. If there are no review comments, as suggestion about resolving it as abandoned or committed will be made. A simple cron talking to the RB API would take care of this. 2. Custom post-commit I'm either going to wrap post-commit, extend it for in house use or rewrite it. All three methods have advantages an disadvantages. * Wrapping it would be simple and I could pass all non custom commands straight to the post-commit script. I already have Python code that I can use as a basis and I'd only have to customize commit and closure. * Extending it to handle the actual commit would be useful outside of my org but would take a lot of work to do right and be flexible enough to handle all the repos RB works with. * Rewriting a custom version would allow for a smaller script and I could strip out unneeded functionality. This would likely be number two in order of complexity. Unfortunately, I don't have any code to share for any of this right now. If/When I make some progress, I'll be sure to publish it here. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jeremy Poulter jeremy.poul...@oregan.net wrote: Hi, As one of the key reviewers my list of open reviews is quite large and the majority of them are inactive as they have either been committed or abandoned. I am after suggestions on how to manage this (I have tried the big stick approach already ;-) Is there a way to query old reviews? Is there a way to limit the number open reviews per user? Cheers, Jeremy -- 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 -- --tucker -- 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 -- John blog: http://arrizza.blogspot.com/ web: http://www.arrizza.com/ -- 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: Basic Workflow
Jeb, We faced the same and have come to a manual workaround. We organize around SCRs (Software Change Requests), with one review per SCR. This leads to a complication in that each review can have multiple revisions (since an SCR can have multiple changesets) and multiple files per revision. Here's an example of our workflow. The example assumes 1 submitter (the developer) and 2 reviewers since that's the way it is for us. Also it has 2 revisions because there were two changesets submitted by the author. Revision 1 has changes to fileA and fileB, and Revision 2 has changes to fileA and fileC. - Submitter creates a review - Reviewer1 goes to the diffs tab, selects Revision 1 - He reviews fileA and finds no faults. He adds a single comment OK file at the first visible line. This isn't necessarily the first line of the file since RB displays the first diff +- context lines. - He reviews fileB and puts a comment in one of the diffs. He does not put OK file in this case. - He changes to Revision2 and finds all files to be ok so he puts OK file against each file there. - Reviewer2 goes to Revision1 and reviews fileA. He finds no problems and also places an OK File in the first visible line. Now anyone can tell that file has been reviewed since it has a 2 when it is viewed in the diff file. - He reviews fileB and if he finds no additional comments, puts an OK file . - He reviews Revision2 and also finds everything ok there too. - Submitter responds to the comment in File A - Reviewer1 goes into FileA and assuming he agrees with the submitter, puts an OK against the comment. - Now, since there are no unanswered comments in FileA, Reviwer1 also puts an OK file in the first visible line in the file. In short, 2 OK files at the top of each file indicates the file review is complete. When all files in all revisions have a 2, the review can be closed. There are complications and nuisances using this method but with people willing to work around them it works ok. Clearly it would be much better to have UI and automated support from RB but it is what it is. John On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Jeb jebbe...@gmail.com wrote: I've read the docs and looked out on the web and haven't really found enough on this subject to satisfy me. Using RB seems pretty simple. Someone creates a review request. I review it. We iterate over the review, having these nice threaded discussions. Code is changed or not, finally it is submitted and closed. The tough part for me is knowing exactly when I've got work to do. 1. Bob creates a review 2. I respond to it asking for clarification on a few things 3. Bob responds How do I know Bob responded? Email - that's not enough for me, I don't rely on email to keep track of workflow issues like that New Comments Icon - what happens when I click the review and then mess with it -- that icon is gone and now it looks like any other review I just wish I could have some custom status or something where I could do the review, hit publish, then change it to awaiting coder feedback or something and have it show up in the submitter's incoming list. I'm sure I'm missing something, and I apologize for wasting anyone's time with this, but I could really use some help. Jeb -- 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 -- John blog: http://arrizza.blogspot.com/ web: http://www.arrizza.com/ -- 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: bug in diff view
I think I found it in the bug tracking history . Issue 381 http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=381:Some comment flags not visible in diff view There is a workaround mentioned there (press the expand) that works, so I'm pretty sure it's the same bug. It's marked fixed, so I guess I need to upgrade... Thanks, John On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi John, There have been a few bugs like this, and I don't remember the releases in which they were fixed, but 1.0.7 is pretty old so there's a good chance they've been fixed since then. Is this a single-line or multi-line comment? Is the comment solely within a changed region of the diff? What browser(s) are you seeing this with? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, We are using Reviewboard 1.0.7. Every so often in the diff view a comment that was added does not appear (ever again). We know the comment is there because the reviews tab shows them. Re-adding the comment does not work. It disappears too. Other users can't see the comments either The steps are: 1) add a comment in the Diff View tab 2) press Publish 3) re-enter the Diff View tab I have't seen any patterns to the file name, file length, number of files in the review, file position within the review etc. that the bug correlates to. If it does happen on a file within a review, then it seems to be more likely to happen every second file in the review -- but not necessarily so. It happens relatively infrequently, perhaps every fifth or so review, all the intervening reviews are fine. So, a couple of questions: 1) Is this a known bug? If so which which version has it been fixed in? 2) If not a known bug, are other's seeing it as well? John -- 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 -- 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
bug in diff view
Hi, We are using Reviewboard 1.0.7. Every so often in the diff view a comment that was added does not appear (ever again). We know the comment is there because the reviews tab shows them. Re-adding the comment does not work. It disappears too. Other users can't see the comments either The steps are: 1) add a comment in the Diff View tab 2) press Publish 3) re-enter the Diff View tab I have't seen any patterns to the file name, file length, number of files in the review, file position within the review etc. that the bug correlates to. If it does happen on a file within a review, then it seems to be more likely to happen every second file in the review -- but not necessarily so. It happens relatively infrequently, perhaps every fifth or so review, all the intervening reviews are fine. So, a couple of questions: 1) Is this a known bug? If so which which version has it been fixed in? 2) If not a known bug, are other's seeing it as well? John -- 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: uploading a generated diff file from command line
I see. I was using the hg postreview which does not have the --diff-filename parameter. The post-review command does exist but it isn't set up (because we never use it) and so it can't find the mercurial repository: The repository path http://cm1/hg/sandbox/v01.0/int; is not in the list of known repositories on the server. Does the mercurial postreview extension need an enhancement? Perhaps a more generic enhancement is to allow different diff utilities to be declared for different filename extensions, e.g. something like this in the .hgrc: [reviewboard] server = http://myserver/reviews difftool = .xml/home/myuserid/bin/xmldiff difftool = .bob /is/your/uncle If the extension is not in the difftool list, the default mercurial diff is used. That way, I still use hg postreview and the correct diff utility is invoked automatically for me. No external files, no manual steps, etc. John On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi John, You want to use plain post-review with the --diff-filename parameter, and specify the diff file. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:09 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: I've searched the archives and google with no luck. I have been able to get a mercurial extdiff called 'xmldiff' to generate a nice, clean diff of my xml file. Now I'd like to be able to post the same diff to RB. My preference would be to run the same diff script using hg postreview some-magic-occurs but I can live with a manual version: hg xmldiff -r nnn some.xml some.diff hg postreview some-magic-occurs some.diff Is there a way to do either of these? John -- 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.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
Re: Three questions for using Review Board 1.0.6
It looks like --parent works. Not sure what I did before, but when I reran a test based on a series of changes to a single test file, the diffs come out as expected. I didn't try file deletions/additions just changes within a single file: - Created a file with three lines line1 line2 line3 - commited and pushed it (say mercurial revision 93) - changed line2 to line2A - commited and pushed it; (say hg revision 94) - changed line3 to line3B - commited and pushed it; (say hg revision 96) - added a new line4 - commited and pushed it; (say hg revision 98) - created a code review: hg postreview 93 (start at the oldest revision first) (creates code review id 50) - added the other revisions hg postreview -e 50 --parent 93 94 hg postreview -e 50 --parent 93 96 hg postreview -e 50 --parent 93 98 - checked out the diffs in RB and the left hand side for all revisions is the file at hg revision 93. The right hand side for the revisions matches up for 94, 96 and 98 as expected. Very nice! The command line is kind of clunky, kind of calls out for a GUI version doesn't it?! We're going to try it as part of our process for a while to see if there's any hidden glitches in more realistic use cases but definitely promising. Thanks for your help, John On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:30 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: 1. interesting. I tried parent but it didn't seem to work the way I expected. It should compare the current revision with the parent revision, but didn't seem to do that. I suspect I probably did not set up the test correctly. In any case, I'll give it another try. -- 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: Three questions for using Review Board 1.0.6
1. interesting. I tried parent but it didn't seem to work the way I expected. It should compare the current revision with the parent revision, but didn't seem to do that. I suspect I probably did not set up the test correctly. In any case, I'll give it another try. On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Andrew Schwartz aschwa...@gmail.comwrote: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying two things: 1. As a new changeset is created by the developer, the developer will update the review request to be based at the same original revision but with the set of changesets under review including all of the original changesets under review + the new changeset. This is already doable in the postreview Mercurial extension with the parent argument. 2. You want comments to be translated over to the new revision. I don't know that this is currently doable in ReviewBoard. Chris, am I missing something? On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:59 PM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Schwartz aschwa...@gmail.comwrote: - have a rollup mechanism. As the additional revisions are added, the changes are rolled up into one aggregate diff. (I assume this would be very complicated code and so might not be doable without significant risk) What do you mean? Say there are 2 diffs/revisions in the CR. The diff is then between v1 and v2. Comments are applied to lines in v2. So far so good. A new version v3 is added to the CR. The diff is then rolled forward so it now shows the diffs between v1 and v3. The comments applied to lines in v2 are moved to the correct lines in the version 3 text. (And there is no more v2 anymore, there's one and only one diff). A new version v4 is added to the CR and the diff is rolled forward again to show the difference between v1 and v4; comments in v2 and v3 rolled forward too; v3 is removed. And so on... Another way to look at it is it's a left-anchored diff. The left-hand side of the diff never changes, only the right hand side does. Like I said, the algorithm likely has many edge conditions and exceptions and so is likely to be very complicated code. John -- 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.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- John blog: http://arrizza.blogspot.com/ web: http://www.arrizza.com/ -- 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: Three questions for using Review Board 1.0.6
Andrew, I am still new to RB, and we are looking for something similar as well. We have an SCR in our defect tracking system that aggregates all work for change. Developers create a series of changesets and then tag each of those with the SCR. When it's time to do a code review, we'd like to have one code review for the entire SCR. So if I'm not mistaken, we are looking for the same thing you are (review request being for a series of changesets). Here are my thoughts (FWIW) on this: There needs to be a way add multiple changeset ids or revision numbers or whatever on the command line. Currently we handle it through a manual process: use hg log to a list of changesets make a list of the changeset revision ids for the SCR, say (88, 89 and 93) starting with the oldest revision (88), create the review using hg postreview 88 (the mercurial-postreview allows this, don't know if the others do) say the new review is id 33 add the remaining revisions one by one from oldest to newest: postreview -e 33 89 postreview -e 33 93 when you go into RB GUI, the three changesets show up as three revisions 1, 2, and 3 where 1-revision88, 2-revision89 and 3-revision93. Cons: - manual steps are error prone - if you screw up and add a revision you shouldn't have, not possible to remove that from the review - if you screw up and forget to add a revision, not possible to insert that into the existing review - the multiple revisions in the code review are confusing to the reviewers. - During a review, it's not possible to tell if a problem in the code in revision x is actually fixed later on in revision y. So, in short, the extensions I'd like to see are: - the manual part of the review request automated. Perhaps it's as simple as allowing multiple changesets to be put on the command line. Or it may have to get more complicated (e.g. list the revisions for the developer through some gui and allow them to select the ones they want from that list) - have a rollup mechanism. As the additional revisions are added, the changes are rolled up into one aggregate diff. (I assume this would be very complicated code and so might not be doable without significant risk) I'm not sure if there are other options available... John On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Andrew Schwartz aschwa...@gmail.comwrote: I think that what I'm talking about is the same thing that Eduardo called Remodelling diff versioning. Does that seem right to you? On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Schwartz aschwa...@gmail.comwrote: Christian, Sorry for letting this thread slide for so long. I'm talking about a review request being for a series of changesets. In our case, we often will split a single feature change into small, easily reviewed changesets. It would be nice to be able to put all of these changesets into a single review request. Does that make sense? -- 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: Three questions for using Review Board 1.0.6
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Schwartz aschwa...@gmail.comwrote: - have a rollup mechanism. As the additional revisions are added, the changes are rolled up into one aggregate diff. (I assume this would be very complicated code and so might not be doable without significant risk) What do you mean? Say there are 2 diffs/revisions in the CR. The diff is then between v1 and v2. Comments are applied to lines in v2. So far so good. A new version v3 is added to the CR. The diff is then rolled forward so it now shows the diffs between v1 and v3. The comments applied to lines in v2 are moved to the correct lines in the version 3 text. (And there is no more v2 anymore, there's one and only one diff). A new version v4 is added to the CR and the diff is rolled forward again to show the difference between v1 and v4; comments in v2 and v3 rolled forward too; v3 is removed. And so on... Another way to look at it is it's a left-anchored diff. The left-hand side of the diff never changes, only the right hand side does. Like I said, the algorithm likely has many edge conditions and exceptions and so is likely to be very complicated code. John -- 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
RB usage
Just looking for some tips on how you use RB. I'm still a newbie at RB so here's my understanding (v1.0.7): - There are two places where you can put Comments and Replys. The first is in the View Diff area. The second is in the View Reviews area. - If you put a Comment in the View Diff area, the Comment also shows up in the View Reviews area. - If you put a Reply in the View Diff area for a particular Comment, it doesn't show next to the original Comment in the View Reviews area, it is in a separate pane at the end of that page. - If you put a Reply in the View Reviews area, it doesn't show up in the View Diff area. So how do you keep track that each comment has been addressed/resolved? We have a rule that says that all changes and comments have to have a final OK by all reviewers but the differences in the View Diff and View Reviews areas make that difficult. John -- 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: keeping track of large number of files
There is one more aspect that I think is important. I look at the SCR as the central unit of work, not the changelist/changeset. RB seems to be geared towards one changeset == one code review But from my perspective, the situation is more like: one SCR == one code review That's why I want to put multiple files into a code review and multiple changesets into a code review. An SCR holds a single enhancement or perhaps a well-defined sub-part of that enhancement. It has to be this way since external non-development people consider an enhancement as a single change and track it, report it, and think about it that way. This also means that an SCR becomes a place to store evidence that we've done everything in the development process we are supposed to do according to our formal procedures. If everything is in a single SCR, it becomes much easier to track and to report that all is ok, i.e. the SCR says the RB id is nnn, the RB code review nnn says every code change was reviewed by every reviewer, therefore the enhancement (aka the SCR) has had a complete set of code reviews performed on it. What this implies to RB is it should have the capability to: - add and remove files in a code review - add flags or checkboxes to each file for each reviewer to indicate the file was reviewed. - add flags or checkboxes for every comment to indicate the comment was addressed or re-reviewed by every reviewer. - The original version doesn't change and all subsequent diffs are compared against it. It is the version of code that existed before the work was started on the SCR. In other words, for a given file, the left hand side of the diff never changes, only the right hand side. If a file is updated, I only want to see the latest version. I would be ok with not seeing any of the intermediate versions/diffs. They just confuse the situation for outside observers (e.g. auditors). John On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:08 AM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: Christian, Thanks for the response! Have you used Google Reader? In Google Reader, as you scroll through a list of posts, it will mark the ones you've scrolled past (or interacted with) as read. This makes it very easy to see all the posts or just the posts you haven't gotten to yet. I haven't used Google Reader, but I think I know what you mean, i.e. similar to the gmail, outlook etc that bolds the subject line? I think this would be good, but my preference is to make the indication more explicit. Just bolding or italicizing a file name isn't concrete enough since visual indications can be unconsciously ignored or inadvertently applied. In any case, it also has to be un-doable (just like outlook allows you to mark as unread). I could also see allowing easily hiding/showing of a diff. Kind of an expander (not diff chunk expansion) where you could collapse the entire thing down to one line with the file's name. That requires a bit more manual work to keep track of where you are, though. I think this and the above together would be a very powerful UI addition to RB. For example, I could collapse all which would show the entire list of files as a simple list, with the ok/not ok as one of the columns. Then I could very quickly find the file that's missing and review it. Also it's a great visual progress indicator. The caveat, I think, is the collapsed list has to show *all* the files, whether new, deleted, modified, in the current revision or not. That sounds more complicated for implementation but from a user perspective, it's a whole lot of nice-to-have. Of course, if RB could assist me by marking a file as not ok whenever a new comment is applied to it by any reviewer, I wouldn't object! I want to know if it would work for your needs, though. I need assistance in tracking the changes developers are doing wrt to fixes based on reviews. The initial reviews are straightforward, but I need to ensure that they have, in fact, implemented the changes from the reviews and that the updates were also reviewed. Since initial commits are whole files and not just a few diffs, there can be a large number of comments per file and of course a large number of files. It quickly gets out of hand, especially when the updates for the comments are put in a few at a time or by different developers. In short, at the end of this process, I need to be able to state with explicit evidence that: - all the reviewers have reviewed the file by applying some positive indication, either a comment or an OK - all of the comments have been addressed, either by a code update or by a discussion indicating everyone agrees the code is OK as is. - all of the code updates were reviewed - ...and follow that tail recursion on down to the last turtle :) I can handle these by imposing rules on the developers, but having a tool guide the process is much much better. John (PS the explicit evidence
Re: keeping track of large number of files
Christian, Thanks for the response! Have you used Google Reader? In Google Reader, as you scroll through a list of posts, it will mark the ones you've scrolled past (or interacted with) as read. This makes it very easy to see all the posts or just the posts you haven't gotten to yet. I haven't used Google Reader, but I think I know what you mean, i.e. similar to the gmail, outlook etc that bolds the subject line? I think this would be good, but my preference is to make the indication more explicit. Just bolding or italicizing a file name isn't concrete enough since visual indications can be unconsciously ignored or inadvertently applied. In any case, it also has to be un-doable (just like outlook allows you to mark as unread). I could also see allowing easily hiding/showing of a diff. Kind of an expander (not diff chunk expansion) where you could collapse the entire thing down to one line with the file's name. That requires a bit more manual work to keep track of where you are, though. I think this and the above together would be a very powerful UI addition to RB. For example, I could collapse all which would show the entire list of files as a simple list, with the ok/not ok as one of the columns. Then I could very quickly find the file that's missing and review it. Also it's a great visual progress indicator. The caveat, I think, is the collapsed list has to show *all* the files, whether new, deleted, modified, in the current revision or not. That sounds more complicated for implementation but from a user perspective, it's a whole lot of nice-to-have. Of course, if RB could assist me by marking a file as not ok whenever a new comment is applied to it by any reviewer, I wouldn't object! I want to know if it would work for your needs, though. I need assistance in tracking the changes developers are doing wrt to fixes based on reviews. The initial reviews are straightforward, but I need to ensure that they have, in fact, implemented the changes from the reviews and that the updates were also reviewed. Since initial commits are whole files and not just a few diffs, there can be a large number of comments per file and of course a large number of files. It quickly gets out of hand, especially when the updates for the comments are put in a few at a time or by different developers. In short, at the end of this process, I need to be able to state with explicit evidence that: - all the reviewers have reviewed the file by applying some positive indication, either a comment or an OK - all of the comments have been addressed, either by a code update or by a discussion indicating everyone agrees the code is OK as is. - all of the code updates were reviewed - ...and follow that tail recursion on down to the last turtle :) I can handle these by imposing rules on the developers, but having a tool guide the process is much much better. John (PS the explicit evidence is for the FDA and our internal quality folks but is applicable to any regulated environment, e.g. FAA, DOD, others?) On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi John, Have you used Google Reader? In Google Reader, as you scroll through a list of posts, it will mark the ones you've scrolled past (or interacted with) as read. This makes it very easy to see all the posts or just the posts you haven't gotten to yet. Would something like that suffice? Visually indicate and internally store which diffs you've read vs. the ones you haven't, and allow for quick filtering of which ones you have or haven't seen. I would personally like a model like this, though I think we'd have to play with it a bit. I want to know if it would work for your needs, though. I could also see allowing easily hiding/showing of a diff. Kind of an expander (not diff chunk expansion) where you could collapse the entire thing down to one line with the file's name. That requires a bit more manual work to keep track of where you are, though. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: Christian, I agree with you as well. However, when someone does publish a massive review, I have no recourse. Here are some suggestions (and only suggestions, meant only to get some conversation going): - allow me to put a comment at a file level (i.e. not on a line number within the file). I can use that to indicate OK. - allow me to put a status on a file. A status is just an ok/not ok indication, no text can be entered. Then allow the file status to cross revisions, i.e. whenever I view any revision, I get a complete list of files from all revisions. The only diffs I see are for the current revision, but I can see all statuses for all files. - allow me to put a status on a file, plus have RB keep track of the total number of comments for that file across
Re: keeping track of large number of files
Christian, I agree with you as well. However, when someone does publish a massive review, I have no recourse. Here are some suggestions (and only suggestions, meant only to get some conversation going): - allow me to put a comment at a file level (i.e. not on a line number within the file). I can use that to indicate OK. - allow me to put a status on a file. A status is just an ok/not ok indication, no text can be entered. Then allow the file status to cross revisions, i.e. whenever I view any revision, I get a complete list of files from all revisions. The only diffs I see are for the current revision, but I can see all statuses for all files. - allow me to put a status on a file, plus have RB keep track of the total number of comments for that file across all revisions. - have a status (ok/not ok) at the file level, one for each revieiwer. Initially the status is not ok. A new comment on any revision for that file resets the file status to not ok. All reviewers can then go in, look at the new comment and/or code fix, and reset the status (for them) to ok. - allow me to remove a diff/file from the current review. - allow me to move a diff/file to another, new, review. - give me full GUI support for splitting up an existing review (whatever that means! :) Are any of these easy to implement given the current RB architecture? John On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: I'll second this. It really is beneficial to try to break up the changes more. Preferably into logical changes (such as code to implement one part of the functionality rather than an entire feature, or doing code cleanups in a separate change), though if you're past the point where that makes sense, even breaking it up into file paths (potentially based on who is most familiar with certain groups of files) would probably help. I've seen this a lot too, where really large changes of mine have sat around because they're too long to review. Not only do people avoid them initially (since it requires such a time commitment), but the feedback isn't as good as it could be. Smaller changes receive better review and can get into the product sooner. Christian -- 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
mercurial-reviewboard - versions?
Hi, I've using mercurial-reviewboard extension and getting some exceptions thrown on various combinations of command lines: hg postreview -o hg postreview -l == AttributeError: 'localrepository' object has no attribute 'findoutgoing' I'm currently using: ReviewBoard 1.0.7 Mercurial Distributed SCM (version 1.6.2) the extension doesn't have version number (the copyright is 2008...) python 2.6 Are these versions compatible with each other? John -- 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
how to double check a comment/action has been done?
Hi, We are just starting to use RB and we've hit a bit of a snag with regards to the workflow. Here's the scenario: 1) Dev1 submits a review. 2) Dev2 reviews the code, finds a problem P1 and posts a comment 3) Dev1 submits a code update but fails to fix P1 4) Dev1 posts a comment saying P1 is fixed On the View Reviews tab, the problem P1 looks like it's fixed because the original comment from Dev2 and the reply from Dev1 shows up there. When you look in the top of that spot, there is a hyperlink to the file and line number: SomeApp/inc/crc.h (Diff revision 1) The Diff revision 1 appears because the original comment was posted against revision 1 (see step 2 above). If you click on the hyperlink, you get taken to the original file (revision 1) and not the latest file (revision 2). To get to the fixed code (well supposedly fixed code), you need to: - go to the View Diff tab - select Go to revision and select the new revision (2 in this case) - manually go to the file and line number - But now Dev2 and Dev1's comments do not show up though since they were against Diff revision 1. This makes it easy to overlook the fact that the file was not, in fact, changed but the developer's comments say that it was. How do other people handle this scenario? John -- 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: Triggers
Scott, Very nice, thanks for the tip! John On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Scott Quesnelle scott.quesne...@gmail.comwrote: I modified the base code for reviewboard. Its one small change in the webapi code to trigger a generate_summary call when the close-submitted action is done. Then a new file which contains the generate_summary code and its appropriate template. The email code was used as the inspiration, and subtle modifications were made to suit the layout I thought best for the summary. This file is then written to the local disk and I have separate automation which pushes it into our bugtracking system. Scott On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:48 AM, J Arrizza cppge...@gmail.com wrote: Scott, Sorry for taking so long to back to you, got tied up on other stuff. Very nice. You modified the base code in some spot or is the review summary generation already a part of RB 1.07? John On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Scott Quesnelle scott.quesne...@gmail.com wrote: John, I have an implementation in my deployment which generates a review summary when the review is closed, and it writes the summary to a file that is named based on the bugid(s) provided. A separate script runs and talks to the bug tracking system and updates the appropriate bug(s) with the review summary in a standardized enclosure. This is currently running on RB 1.0. Scott -- John blog: http://arrizza.blogspot.com/ web: http://www.arrizza.com/ -- 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.comreviewboard%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en -- John blog: http://arrizza.blogspot.com/ web: http://www.arrizza.com/ -- 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
keeping track of large number of files
Hi, When initial code is put into RB or a large change is put in, there can be many files (say 50). Can't really review that in one sitting so there needs to be a way for a reviewer to keep track of which files he's finished with (e.g. ok with file xyz.cpp). I see that an issue was raised for this already (by Ben Hollis) Issue 1772 http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=1772:Allow reviewers to check off files they've looked at In the meantime, has any one come up with a good workaround? I've thought of just putting a comment that says OK, but that could get messy especially with email notifications... John -- 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: Triggers
Scott, Sorry for taking so long to back to you, got tied up on other stuff. Very nice. You modified the base code in some spot or is the review summary generation already a part of RB 1.07? John On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Scott Quesnelle scott.quesne...@gmail.comwrote: John, I have an implementation in my deployment which generates a review summary when the review is closed, and it writes the summary to a file that is named based on the bugid(s) provided. A separate script runs and talks to the bug tracking system and updates the appropriate bug(s) with the review summary in a standardized enclosure. This is currently running on RB 1.0. Scott -- John blog: http://arrizza.blogspot.com/ web: http://www.arrizza.com/ -- 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: Triggers
Christian, Sorry for taking so long to back to you as well... This is a great idea, should make a lot of things easier to connect up. John On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.comwrote: Hi John, This support is coming in 1.6 in the form of WebHooks. On various operations, Review Board will perform an HTTP POST to a pre-specified URL, along with a payload of the changes. That script can then do whatever it wants, including turning around and posting on defect tracking systems. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com -- 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
