'Select a valid choice. 1880 is not one of the available choices.'
This sounds like validatation error of the MultipleChoiceField. If
this is true I'm very surprised because I explicitly disabled
validation by using a specialized version of MultipleChoiceField:
class MultiChoiceWithoutValidation(f
It's a bit too late in the game for 1.6, but it's something I'd love to see
us get in after that. We've wanted this functionality before and had a
couple attempts for doing it as part of student projects.
At some point if we get a patch up on reviews.reviewboard.org, we'll see
what it'd take to ge
Spoke too soon. Although the list of revisions is now getting
populated, when selection one of the check-boxes and clicking the
'Create' button, it comes back with 'Select a valid choice. 1880 is not
one of the available choices.' however manually entering revision 1880
in the text box does cre
Ignore me - further code inspection led me to realise that my
reviewboard userid wasnt the same user that had done the subversion
checkin. On changing my reviewboard userid to match, the button now
populates a nice list of revisions.
Great job.:-)
Now to convince
the team at work that this
Hi Philipp,
I've pulled your latest code from git and updated my
install. It no longer errors, but just displays "No pending revisions
found." on clicking on the 'Get Revisions' button.
I've checked in a
handful of new revisions too in case it remembered the revisions I had
previously liste
Rob,
The fix is committed. Could you please test with the latest version of
reviewboard/scmtools/svn_post_tracker.py?
- Philipp
On May 10, 8:58 pm, Philipp Henkel
wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks, I'm glad you like it.
> Currently I rely on svn:log property in order to extract the commit
> descripti
Hi Rob,
Thanks, I'm glad you like it.
Currently I rely on svn:log property in order to extract the commit
description. This property might not exist because you don't enforce
commit messages (like we do). I have already a better solution in mind
and it should be easy to fix.
Best regards,
Philipp
Hi Philipp,
I am very interested in your Subversion Post-commit
enhancement, and quite possibly might be the killer feature that
persuades us to start using it at work too.
I have downloaded your
code and dropped it on top of 1.5.5 for now (if I get time, I'll be
trying to port your patches
Hi,
Did anyone had a chance to have look at my post-commit implementation?
http://philipphenkel.github.com/post-reviewboard
The subversion implementation is complete and for Perforce I realized
the basic feature set. It is already possible to create requests by
typing in change numbers in the Pos
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'll be honest, I'm not wild about Review Board's codebase knowing about
> post-review at all. It introduces some compatibility concerns and makes it
> harder to move forward on either end without breaking the other.
I suspect Y
Hey,
I'll be honest, I'm not wild about Review Board's codebase knowing about
post-review at all. It introduces some compatibility concerns and makes it
harder to move forward on either end without breaking the other.
What I'd prefer instead is just expanding upon the capabilities that SCMTool
of
Philipp,
Thank You for fast response. Implementing new class to do the same
(what rbtools.postreview does) sounds like some part of work can be
"reused". Guessing (watching screenshot o Your website) You have
different approach to Subversion post-review requesting but for other
tools like Clear
Hi Jan,
I neither use post-review nor the rbtools. I decided to slightly
extend the SCM tool concept and derived a new class from SVNTool. This
new SCM tool provides functionality like diff file creation or
generation of revisions which are not yet added to Review Board.
Web user interfaces are no
Hi Philipp,
Are You simply running post-review under the scene or somehow import
Python classes from rbtools and call appropriate method?
I will also a little bit improve UI leaving "New Review Request" but
modifying it just extending window by some "Java Script" tab like
http://jqueryui.com/d
Hi Rob,
Most probably moving to 1.6 code line is not much effort. At least I
tried to keep my changes to the main code base small. At the moment
I'm fully focused on adding more feature and therefore I have not yet
evaluated 1.6.
Regarding scmbug: Parsing the svn log is not a big deal and not much
Hi Philipp,
This looks like a great feature - our dev teams work
by checking in code at the end of each day, so being able to do a
post-commit review over multiple revisions would be a killer feature for
us. I'm currently evaluating the 1.6beta1 version - would there be much
involved in porti
That sounds great. Indeed it would be nice to merge this feature into
the official code line and I'm willing to assist.
Looking forward to your feedback.
Philipp
--
Philipp Henkel
Citrix Online - www.citrixonline.com
The views expressed here are mine alone and have not been authorized
by, and do
On
> Behalf Of Martin
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:53 AM
> To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
>
> Congratulations, I saw you customization and is great.
> Do you know if there is something like that for git?
>
> T
Awesome! This is something we've wanted for a while, and even had a couple
student projects to try to figure it out. I'd love to work on getting this
into Review Board. Will look through the code after I'm back from my little
vacation :)
Christian
--
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Revie
Good work! How about CVS?
From: reviewboard@googlegroups.com [mailto:reviewboard@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Martin
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:53 AM
To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Realized web-based post-commit reviews
Congratulations
Congratulations, I saw you customization and is great.
Do you know if there is something like that for git?
Thanks in advance.
Martin.
--
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/
-~---
21 matches
Mail list logo
