Word-break making it difficult to read numbers of reviews in dashboard navbar
In the dashboard navbar, one of my users noticed that if a review group is sufficiently long and the group has =100 reviews, the UI wraps both the group name and the number of reviews. Wrapping the group name isn't too big a deal. However, wrapping the number of reviews makes it a bit hard to read, especially when a user is a member of many review groups. I changed word-break from 'break-all' to 'normal' in common.min.css which seemed to keep the number from wrapping. By doing this though, am I ignoring any design decision that led to 'word-break break-all' from being used explicitly? I'm using 1.7.18 btw... Thanks!!! -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Change in LDAP authentication behavior in 1.7.14 breaks environments that don't allow anonymous searches
David, Sorry for the massive delay! I've finally posted it at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/4953/. On Friday, October 18, 2013 1:51:59 AM UTC-7, David Trowbridge wrote: Daniel, I'd suggest making a quick clone of the reviewboard repository, making your change, and then posting your diff against the reviewboard repository by either creating a diff manually (git diff --full-index) or using rbt post. -David On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Daniel Kan danie...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: David, Sure, although I'm not sure how to post a bare diff there without specifying a repository. Is that possible? Thanks! On Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:43:43 PM UTC-7, David Trowbridge wrote: Would you mind submitting your change to http://reviews.reviewboard.org/? Thanks! -David On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Daniel Kan danie...@gmail.com wrote: I am using RB 1.7.x with an LDAP authentication backend and it's been working fine up through 1.7.13. With 1.7.14, the authentication mechanism no longer works in my environment. After some digging, it appears that there was a change in reviewboard/accounts/backends.py to search anonymously for the user before attempting to bind. The LDAP server in my environment is set up to not return any results to anonymous queries and so the authentication attempt fails. Is there a reason this was changed? Thanks!!! In an attempt to preserve the existing behavior of doing an anonymous search but then attempting a bind as a specific user if the anonymous search returns nothing, I made the following change which works for me: --- reviewboard/accounts/backends.py.orig 2013-09-24 16:18:47.0 -0700 +++ reviewboard/accounts/backends.py2013-09-24 16:20:01.0 -0700 @@ -210,7 +210,10 @@ search = ldapo.search_s(settings.LDAP_BASE_DN, ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, uid) -userbinding = search[0][0] + if (len(search) 0): + userbinding = search[0][0] + else: + userbinding=','.join([uid, settings.LDAP_BASE_DN]) ldapo.bind_s(userbinding, password) return self.get_or_create_user(username, None, ldapo) -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/ powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Change in LDAP authentication behavior in 1.7.14 breaks environments that don't allow anonymous searches
David, Sure, although I'm not sure how to post a bare diff there without specifying a repository. Is that possible? Thanks! On Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:43:43 PM UTC-7, David Trowbridge wrote: Would you mind submitting your change to http://reviews.reviewboard.org/ ? Thanks! -David On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Daniel Kan danie...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I am using RB 1.7.x with an LDAP authentication backend and it's been working fine up through 1.7.13. With 1.7.14, the authentication mechanism no longer works in my environment. After some digging, it appears that there was a change in reviewboard/accounts/backends.py to search anonymously for the user before attempting to bind. The LDAP server in my environment is set up to not return any results to anonymous queries and so the authentication attempt fails. Is there a reason this was changed? Thanks!!! In an attempt to preserve the existing behavior of doing an anonymous search but then attempting a bind as a specific user if the anonymous search returns nothing, I made the following change which works for me: --- reviewboard/accounts/backends.py.orig 2013-09-24 16:18:47.0 -0700 +++ reviewboard/accounts/backends.py2013-09-24 16:20:01.0 -0700 @@ -210,7 +210,10 @@ search = ldapo.search_s(settings.LDAP_BASE_DN, ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, uid) -userbinding = search[0][0] + if (len(search) 0): + userbinding = search[0][0] + else: + userbinding=','.join([uid,settings.LDAP_BASE_DN]) ldapo.bind_s(userbinding, password) return self.get_or_create_user(username, None, ldapo) -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Change in LDAP authentication behavior in 1.7.14 breaks environments that don't allow anonymous searches
I am using RB 1.7.x with an LDAP authentication backend and it's been working fine up through 1.7.13. With 1.7.14, the authentication mechanism no longer works in my environment. After some digging, it appears that there was a change in reviewboard/accounts/backends.py to search anonymously for the user before attempting to bind. The LDAP server in my environment is set up to not return any results to anonymous queries and so the authentication attempt fails. Is there a reason this was changed? Thanks!!! In an attempt to preserve the existing behavior of doing an anonymous search but then attempting a bind as a specific user if the anonymous search returns nothing, I made the following change which works for me: --- reviewboard/accounts/backends.py.orig 2013-09-24 16:18:47.0 -0700 +++ reviewboard/accounts/backends.py2013-09-24 16:20:01.0 -0700 @@ -210,7 +210,10 @@ search = ldapo.search_s(settings.LDAP_BASE_DN, ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, uid) -userbinding = search[0][0] + if (len(search) 0): + userbinding = search[0][0] + else: + userbinding=','.join([uid,settings.LDAP_BASE_DN]) ldapo.bind_s(userbinding, password) return self.get_or_create_user(username, None, ldapo) -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Error with home directory path expansion when using rbt?
New user to ReviewBoard here. Great tool with an intuitive interface,
thanks for your efforts! Recently, one of my users was using 'rbt' from
RBTools 0.5.1 and noticed that it would not accept '~' in the value for
--diff-filename. My guess was that rbt does not run os.path.expanduser on
the value, so I modified rbtools/commands/post.py with the following:
--- orig/rbtools/commands/post.py 2013-05-30 00:36:44.0 -0700
+++ RBTools-0.5.1.1-py2.7.egg/rbtools/commands/post.py 2013-06-11
15:33:05.449908000 -0700
@@ -455,8 +455,11 @@
diff = sys.stdin.read()
else:
try:
-diff_path = os.path.join(origcwd,
- self.options.diff_filename)
+if (self.options.diff_filename.startswith('~')):
+ diff_path =
os.path.expanduser(self.options.diff_filename)
+else:
+diff_path = os.path.join(origcwd,
+
self.options.diff_filename)
fp = open(diff_path, 'r')
diff = fp.read()
fp.close()
My question is, is this sufficient to fix the problem or are there more
places where I need to run expanduser? Also, although debug output
indicates that it is unable to open the file, running rbt in normal mode is
silent about not being able to find the difffile. Thanks!!!
--
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.
