Re: RBTools Ticket #4871: Unable to rbt post when using subversion after renaming a file
-- To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4871/ -- New update by pfee For Beanbag, Inc. > RBTools > Ticket #4871 Reply: Markdown has adjust some of the above text, hopefully the content and patch are still readable. Shame splat has no button to disable markdown like ReviewBoard has. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard-issues" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard-issues/20200515153634.3562.90160%40ip-10-1-54-209.ec2.internal.
RBTools Ticket #4871: Unable to rbt post when using subversion after renaming a file
-- To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4871/ -- New ticket #4871 by pfee For Beanbag, Inc. > RBTools Status: New Tags: Priority:Medium, Type:Defect -- Unable to rbt post when using subversion after renaming a file == # What version are you running? OpenSUSE Tumbleweed (w/updates as of 15 May 2020) SVN 1.13.0 Python 3.8.2 RBTools 1.0.2 # What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Make changes in an SVN sandbox, including renaming a file with "svn mv". 2. Post the changes for review using "rbt post -d --svn-show-copies-as-adds=n" 3. Posting fails due to python exception # What is the expected output? What do you see instead? Expect "Review request #xyz posted." Instead see Python exception and stacktrace: >>> Running: svn --non-interactive diff --diff-cmd=diff --notice-ancestry -r >>> BASE --no-diff-deleted Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/rbt", line 11, in load_entry_point('RBTools==1.0.2', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')() File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/commands/main.py", line 120, in main command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args) File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/commands/__init__.py", line 725, in run_from_argv exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0 File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/commands/post.py", line 802, in main diff_info = self.tool.diff( File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py", line 517, in diff diff = self._handle_empty_files(diff, diff_cmd, File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py", line 789, in _handle_empty_files result.append(b'--- %s\t%s\n' % (filename.encode(_fs_encoding), AttributeError: 'bytes' object has no attribute 'encode' # What operating system are you using? Linux, openSUSE Tumbleweed. Distro packaged versions of RBTools, python3 and subversion. # Please provide any additional information below. Debugged this using python debugger: python3 -m pdb /usr/bin/rbt post -d --svn-show-copies-as-adds=n (Pdb) b /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py:789 Relevant code: 788 result.append(b'%s\n' % self.INDEX_SEP) 789 result.append(b'--- %s\t%s\n' % (filename.encode(_fs_encoding), 790 base.encode('utf-8'))) 791 result.append(b'+++ %s\t%s\n' % (filename.encode(_fs_encoding), 792 tip.encode('utf-8'))) The "filename" variable is of type "bytes", rather than "str", hence doesn't have a .encode() method. Removing this .encode() call allowed the "rbt post" to work as expected. The contents of filename comes from the "diff_content", so I suspect it will always by of type "bytes", though I haven't tested the fix below extensively. PATCH = $ diff -u /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py.orig /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py --- /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py.orig 2020-05-15 16:10:03.876230238 +0100 +++ /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/rbtools/clients/svn.py 2020-05-15 16:12:36.331769935 +0100 @@ -786,9 +786,9 @@ tip = revisions['tip'] result.append(b'%s\n' % self.INDEX_SEP) -result.append(b'--- %s\t%s\n' % (filename.encode(_fs_encoding), +result.append(b'--- %s\t%s\n' % (filename, base.encode('utf-8'))) -result.append(b'+++ %s\t%s\n' % (filename.encode(_fs_encoding), +result.append(b'+++ %s\t%s\n' % (filename, tip.encode('utf-8'))) # Skip the next line (the index separator) since we've already -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard-issues" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard-issues/20200515153315.3567.78514%40ip-10-1-54-209.ec2.internal.
Re: Annotating Reviews
I've recently been posting large diffs for colleagues to review and had the same thoughts about being able to set the order of the files and perhaps annotate the code for the benefit of those reviewing my work. I'm currently using RB2.0. Would upgrading to RB3.0 help or are there plans to enhance this aspect of reviewboard in a future release? -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Review Board Community" 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/d/optout.
Re: Review Board turns 10 today!
Fantastic achievement Christian, David and everyone else that has contributed. We use Reviewboard on a daily basis and it helps greatly with getting developers to engage in the review process. Well done and keep up the good work. Thank you, Paul -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Testing Needed] Review Board 2.5.2 for RHEL/CentOS 7
Hi Stephen, That's great news, I had been wondering if Fedora/RHEL users would be seeing RB2.5 soon. On Fedora, it looks like the Django packages have moved ahead to 1.8, but RB still needs 1.6. Hence ReviewBoard has disappeared from Fedora from F22 onwards :( Nice to see that the situation on RHEL+EPEL is better. For users on that platform, what can we expect when installing the upgrade? If I already have a 2.0.18 installation and a site populated with users/reviews/comments etc. will this migrate without effort up to RB 2.5.2 or is anything else required, e.g. database backup/restore? Thanks, Paul On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 12:05:06 AM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Hello, folks! It's time for a big update. As many of you are probably > aware, I maintain the RPMs of Review Board that live in Fedora's EPEL > project[1] (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux). > > For some time now, EPEL 7 (which provides community-supported add-on > software for RHEL 7 and CentOS 7) has been providing Review Board 2.0.x > packages. However, time passes and I now feel that it's worth upgrading > EPEL 7 to carry 2.5.2 with all of the enhancements and bugfixes that this > entails. > > This is a pretty major update to the server-side of things, so I'd really > like to get some serious testing performed if possible before I push this > out to the stable repository. (Getting testing for updates has been a > problem in the past, which is why updates tend to trail the upstream > releases by at least two weeks; EPEL has a policy that it must remain in > the testing repository for at least that time unless it receives positive > feedback from people testing it). > > So, how can you help? The simplest way to do so would be to install the > new RPMs on your RHEL/CentOS 7 systems by installing the EPEL 7 repository > and then running: > `yum install --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` or `yum update > --enablerepo=epel-testing ReviewBoard` if you have an existing > installation. (Note: this was just submitted for the testing repository, so > it may take up to 48 hours to reach your local mirror, though usually less > than 24). > > Then play around with it; test that it upgrades cleanly and that you can > create new sites in your preferred configuration. Once you have feedback to > provide (positive *or* negative), please create a Fedora Account at > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ and then log in at > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b8671a8638 and > use the feedback buttons and comment field to let me know how it went. > > Warning: if I get no feedback at all, I'm just going to push this to > stable at the end of two weeks, so if you don't want any surprises at your > next stable update, please help me out here. > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL > -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.5 beta 2 is out!
Hi Christian, I occasionally see bugs when using rbt post to push up multiple drafts before I publish. I suspect that a previous draft is cached server side, browser cache clearing and memcached restarts fail to fix the issue. Repeat use of rbt post following local code changes doesn't always result in visible changes on the interdiff web page. I haven't been able to reliably reproduce this and can't share the specific diffs in question as the code is private. Also, I've seen occasions where I can see the change in the side-by-side diff viewer (e.g. lines deleted), however the lines are not always colour coded to highlight the change as expected. I'm using RB 2.0.18. Sorry, I just noticed I previously asked if the 2.5 interdiff changes were relevant for RB1.7, I should have asked if they were relevant to RB2.0 as that's the version I've had interdiff viewing problems with. Thanks, Paul On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:35:30 PM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote: Hi Paul, These fixes are not. Interdiffs were largely rewritten since 1.7 and behave differently. We've had further changes since 2.0 (though we may backport some of these fixes). Are there particular fixes you're interested in? Christain -- Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com javascript: Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Paul Fee paul@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Hi Christian, I see this line in the 2.5 Beta 2 release notes: * Diff Viewer - Fixed some problems with interdiffs resulting from rebased changes Are these fixes applicable to the 1.7 release branch? Thanks, Paul On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:54:36 PM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM Christian Hammond chri...@beanbaginc.com wrote: Hey everyone, We've put out the second beta of Review Board 2.5. We're hoping to wrap this release cycle up soon, get an RC out the door in the next two weeks and then ship the final 2.5 release shortly after. We'd love your testing to help make this happen. You can read our announcement, complete with screenshots, here: https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/07/20/review-board-2-5-beta-2-out/ We also have an announcements mailing list available, for those not on it: https://www.reviewboard.org/mailing-lists/ And as a reminder, we're posting the latest development news, feature additions, design ideas, etc. over at the Review Board ChangeLog: http://changelog.assembly.com/reviewboard I've also created a new COPR repository for Fedora 21+ and RHEL/CentOS 7. You can now download and install Review Board 2.5 beta 2 for evaluation on those platforms. Browse to https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/reviewboard2.5/ and install the appropriate repository file into /etc/yum.repos.d, then do 'yum install ReviewBoard'. If you already have Review Board on the target system, back it up and then just do 'yum update ReviewBoard' (after having installed the repo file, of course). Yum may prompt you to accept the signing key for these new packages; that key should be: f836 fa56 6e04 caa8 832f 6efd fa1d d63c 353c 6a28 -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.5 beta 2 is out!
Hi Christian, I see this line in the 2.5 Beta 2 release notes: * Diff Viewer - Fixed some problems with interdiffs resulting from rebased changes Are these fixes applicable to the 1.7 release branch? Thanks, Paul On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:54:36 PM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM Christian Hammond chri...@beanbaginc.com javascript: wrote: Hey everyone, We've put out the second beta of Review Board 2.5. We're hoping to wrap this release cycle up soon, get an RC out the door in the next two weeks and then ship the final 2.5 release shortly after. We'd love your testing to help make this happen. You can read our announcement, complete with screenshots, here: https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/07/20/review-board-2-5-beta-2-out/ We also have an announcements mailing list available, for those not on it: https://www.reviewboard.org/mailing-lists/ And as a reminder, we're posting the latest development news, feature additions, design ideas, etc. over at the Review Board ChangeLog: http://changelog.assembly.com/reviewboard I've also created a new COPR repository for Fedora 21+ and RHEL/CentOS 7. You can now download and install Review Board 2.5 beta 2 for evaluation on those platforms. Browse to https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/reviewboard2.5/ and install the appropriate repository file into /etc/yum.repos.d, then do 'yum install ReviewBoard'. If you already have Review Board on the target system, back it up and then just do 'yum update ReviewBoard' (after having installed the repo file, of course). Yum may prompt you to accept the signing key for these new packages; that key should be: f836 fa56 6e04 caa8 832f 6efd fa1d d63c 353c 6a28 -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RB 2.0.17 - Interdiff fails to highlight deleted code
Hi all, I'm using ReviewBoard 2.0.17 and see unexpected behaviour in the diff viewer. Steps to reproduce: 1. Change a few files (I'm using SVN) 2. rbt post changelist 3. Publish review 4. Delete a group of lines from one of the files already changed. 5. rbt post -r ID changelist 6. Publish review 7. Review entire diff: http://reviewboard/r/9581/diff/2/ - Result: PASS 8. Review first interdiff: http://reviewboard/r/9581/diff/1/ - Result: PASS 9. Review second interdiff: http://reviewboard/r/9581/diff/1-2/ - Result: FAIL In the second interdiff, RB states that the file contains only whitespace changes, this is incorrect as lines have been deleted. Expanding the entire file, the contain on the left and right diff panels is correct, I can see that the deleted lines have gone, however they're not highlighted in red as expected. I don't think this is related to caching as the following steps had no effect, the second interdiff consistently shows the same result. * systemctl restart memcached * systemctl restart httpd * View second interdiff with different browsers (Firefox and Chromium), both show same results, hence not a browser cache issue. I'm running ReviewBoard on CentOS7 using EPEL packages. Let me know if you need more information to help recreate or fix this bug. Thanks, Paul -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more
Hi Christian, It wasn't a browser cache issue as the incorrect results were visible after switch between multiple browsers (using independent browser caches), therefore the problem must have been on the server. I tried to reproduce this again today, but wasn't able to - you could take that as good news ;) When I previously saw the bug, the review was created with 2.0.15 and then continued to have more diff sets added after the server had been upgraded to 2.0.17. I don't know whether that aspect is relevant. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this and if I can reproduce it reliably I'll let you know. In the mean time, ignore this bug report. Thanks, Paul On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 3:16:14 AM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote: Hi Paul, Thanks for reporting this. I went through our caching code, and I'm not really sure why this is happening off-hand. Were you able to fix this by clearing your browser cache, or did you have to restart memcached? Christian -- Christian Hammond - chri...@beanbaginc.com javascript: Review Board - https://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - https://www.beanbaginc.com -Original Message- From: Paul Fee paul@gmail.com javascript: Reply: revie...@googlegroups.com javascript: revie...@googlegroups.com javascript: Date: June 18, 2015 at 9:45:59 AM To: revie...@googlegroups.com javascript: revie...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: Re: Review Board 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more Hi Christian, I'm seeing some buggy behaviour around the caching of diffs. It looks like a server side problem as the buggy diff content persists even if I reload with CTRL-F5 or switch browsers (e.g. firefox to chromium). Steps to reproduce: 1. Change some code, I happen to be using SVN. 2. Upload diff to existing review. $ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist 3. View the draft interdiff, all it ok at this point. 4. Change the code some more without publishing draft changes. 5. Upload diff again, should change content of draft diff. $ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist 6. View the draft interdiff - BUG - diff content on web page is from first upload, changes from second rbt post are not displayed. From the 2.0.16 release notes, If a diff has already been viewed once, by anyone, it will be quicker to retrieve and display.. I suspect the draft is being cached. A blunt fix could be to avoid caching diffs for drafts. A better fix would be to invalidate caches for draft diffs when a new diffset is uploaded. Hopefully those steps are clear enough for you to reproduce the issue. Let me know if you need more information. Thanks, Paul -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more
Hi Christian, I'm seeing some buggy behaviour around the caching of diffs. It looks like a server side problem as the buggy diff content persists even if I reload with CTRL-F5 or switch browsers (e.g. firefox to chromium). Steps to reproduce: 1. Change some code, I happen to be using SVN. 2. Upload diff to existing review. $ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist 3. View the draft interdiff, all it ok at this point. 4. Change the code some more without publishing draft changes. 5. Upload diff again, should change content of draft diff. $ rbt post -r XXX svn_changelist 6. View the draft interdiff - BUG - diff content on web page is from first upload, changes from second rbt post are not displayed. From the 2.0.16 release notes, If a diff has already been viewed once, by anyone, it will be quicker to retrieve and display.. I suspect the draft is being cached. A blunt fix could be to avoid caching diffs for drafts. A better fix would be to invalidate caches for draft diffs when a new diffset is uploaded. Hopefully those steps are clear enough for you to reproduce the issue. Let me know if you need more information. Thanks, Paul -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more
Hi Stephen, The 2.0.17 packages for EPEL7 worked as expected, karma dispensed. Thanks to all those that contributed to 2.0.16 and 2.0.17, I especially liked the fixes to the interdiff version selector as that was bugging me. The performance improvements are also nice to see. Cheers, Paul -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.0.16 is released, with security fixes and more
Hi Stephen, EPEL7 upgrade didn't work for me. Negative karma and details of haystack dependency issue here. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6685/ReviewBoard-2.0.16-1.el7,python-djblets-0.8.19-1.el7,python-django-evolution-0.7.5-1.el7 Forgive the formatting, I see bodhi doesn't preserve line endings within the comment box. HTH, Paul On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 5:55:48 PM UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:47 AM Christian Hammond chri...@beanbaginc.com javascript: wrote: Hey everyone, We just put out a release of Review Board 2.0.16. This release contains security fixes, so we recommend that you update! There are also some significant performance improvements across the entire site, especially for diff loading, along with a great many bug fixes. This is all detailed in the news post: https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/06/11/review-board-2-0-16-out-safer-faster-and-more-stable/ Packages for Fedora 21 and RHEL/CentOS 7 are now available at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ReviewBoard Packages for Fedora 22 and 23 (Rawhide) are available in my COPR repository: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sgallagh/f22-reviewboard/ -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Review Board 2.0.13 is out!
Hi David, Both ReviewBoard-2.0.13-1.el7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0798/ReviewBoard-2.0.13-1.el7,python-djblets-0.8.15-1.el7?_csrf_token=ece4520dac50305f9779aaadf86012cee633767e and RBTools-0.7.1-1.el7 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0673/RBTools-0.7.1-1.el7?_csrf_token=ece4520dac50305f9779aaadf86012cee633767e are still in testing. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ReviewBoard https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/RBTools You can upgrade to them by enabling the epel-testing repo like this: $ sudo yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing RBTools If you find the new versions work as expected, then please leave positive karma by commenting on the versions you've tested. I did this for the F21 package, which got it promoted from testing to stable: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1786/RBTools-0.7.1-1.fc21 Positive testing results from you will help other EPEL7 users benefit from these updates. Thanks, Paul On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:02:58 PM UTC, David Carson wrote: Will this show up in CentOS 7 yum soon? Also, I was expecting the RBTools update to show up in CentOS 7 yum, but it has not. Thanks for the great work. There are several bug fixes that I'm anxious to pick up. On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 12:40:18 PM UTC-5, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 14:22 -0800, Christian Hammond wrote: Hey everyone, We just put out a release of Review Board 2.0.13. This features several bug fixes, some new features for Subversion and administrators, and API performance improvements when using RBTools 0.7.1+. See the announcement for more info: https://www.reviewboard.org/news/2015/02/12/review-board-2-0-13-released/ And the release notes: https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/releasenotes/reviewboard/2.0.13/ Fedora 21 and EPEL 7 packages are available at: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ReviewBoard -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Errno 13] Permission denied error when sending emails
Hi all (and Stephen), Looks like there are problems beyond SELinux here. However in case you haven't already, you'll need adjust SELinux so that httpd (which is running the RB Django code via mod_wsgi) is allowed make outbound TCP connections to port 25. $ sudo setsebool -P httpd_can_sendmail 1 HTH, Paul On Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:17:22 AM UTC, Yang wrote: Hello Michaela, Could you please explain more how you fixed this issue? I meet the same problem of sending emails in web2py running on Apache (CentOS). Thanks! On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:03:51 PM UTC+2, Michaela Newell wrote: Actually, figured out what the last bits were it was because I had TLS ticked but my server didn't have it. Fixed now :) Thanks very much. Your command audit2allow -a did not work however. On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:34:39 UTC+1, Michaela Newell wrote: Hi Stephan, Thanks for reply. It is RHEL/CentOS 6. It did not go away when I tried the command but the error message has changed. Output from log now is: - Error sending e-mail notification with subject 'Review Request 2: gfhgf' on behalf of ' .x...@.com' to ' .x...@.com': STARTTLS extension not supported by server. Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reviewboard/notifications/email.py, line 244, in send_review_mail message.send() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/message.py, line 248, in send return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self]) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py, line 85, in send_messages new_conn_created = self.open() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py, line 51, in open self.connection.starttls() File /usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py, line 611, in starttls raise SMTPException(STARTTLS extension not supported by server.) SMTPException: STARTTLS extension not supported by server. The audit2allow -a command came back with command not found, running as root. Michaela On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 14:48:30 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 08/20/2013 09:46 AM, Michaela Newell wrote: I am attempting to set-up emails. I have all three options selected and a valid smtp server. When I add a new user the logs show nothing but the email does not get sent. When I add a new review request I get this in the log: - Error sending e-mail notification with subject 'Review Request 1: ...' on behalf of ' .x...@.com' to ' .x...@.com': [Errno 13] Permission denied Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reviewboard/notifications/email.py, line 244, in send_review_mail message.send() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/message.py, line 248, in send return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self]) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py, line 85, in send_messages new_conn_created = self.open() File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py, line 48, in open local_hostname=DNS_NAME.get_fqdn()) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py, line 239, in __init__ (code, msg) = self.connect(host, port) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py, line 295, in connect self.sock = self._get_socket(host, port, self.timeout) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/smtplib.py, line 273, in _get_socket return socket.create_connection((port, host), timeout) File /usr/lib64/python2.6/socket.py, line 567, in create_connection raise error, msg error: [Errno 13] Permission denied Does anyone know of any causes? Is this RHEL/CentOS 6? It's possibke that SELinux might be interfering. Does it go away if you do 'setenforce 0' as root? If so, please run the command: audit2allow -a and send me the output. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Fresh install on CentOS+EPEL - manual steps necessary beyond package installation
Hi Stephen, Thanks for the feedback, it's encouraging to see that some of the items could be automated and I appreciate that others will remain manual steps for the reasons you've stated. In the mean time, should we enhance the ReviewBoard documentation so that it lists the steps necessary to go from a fresh OS install up to a working ReviewBoard site? The current page lacks some of the steps I've detailed. https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/admin/installation/linux/ The current page mixes generic steps with distro specific information, which may confuse new users as they try to figure out which steps to apply and which to skip. Despite the risk of duplicating information, I think it might be clearer and more concise if we had a separate page for RHEL/CentOS/Fedora installation. Similar pages could be constructed for other distros. If this seems reasonable, then how do we go about updating those pages? What format are the pages written in? The longer term aim is that over time as some of the steps get incorporated in the distro packages or within rb-site install, then the manual install steps will shrink. Thanks, Paul On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:44:46 AM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 04:33 -0700, Paul Fee wrote: Hi Stephen et al., I'm trying to get a CentOS7+EPEL install procedure that involves minimal setup. My aim is to get most functionality into the distro packages so that manual steps are reduced. Thanks for the bugs fixes and support so far. Here's a list of the manuals steps still necessary. I'd like feedback if any of these can be automated and incorporated in a package. For those that remain manual steps, should we update the install documentation to make this easier for others? Manual steps following CentOS7 minimal install: 1. Enable EPEL $ sudo yum install epel-release EPEL is not part of the standard installation for a reason; it's community-provided rather than part of the RHEL standard package set. You can discuss with CentOS whether this should be available by default. 2. Install reviewboard, database and memcached $ sudo yum install ReviewBoard mariadb-server memcached 3. Start database server and secure it $ sudo systemctl enable mariadb $ sudo systemctl start mariadb $ sudo mysql_secure_installation These steps we are working on in the Fedora Server product and will hopefully be part of RHEL 8 (or maybe sometime later in the RHEL 7 lifecycle). Although our first target is postgresql, not MariaDB. Short version: we intend to have a one-click mechanism to deploy a new DB via the new rolekit project (Shameless plug: this is my latest effort). 4. Create database for use by reviewboard $ mysql -u root -p create user review_user@localhost identified by 'review_password'; create database reviewboard; GRANT ALL ON reviewboard.* TO review_user; I'll probably try to roll this creation into the rolekit-based deployment as well. 5. Create a reviewboard site $ sudo rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard/ This part is *very* ReviewBoard specific. We can't hard-code a path into the packages and we can't automatically deploy because we don't know the database information without user input (and RPM installs are non-interactive, unlike Debian packages with debconf. That's a whole other topic though). 6. Adjust httpd configuration $ sudo ln -s /var/www/reviewboard.bfs.tsp/conf/apache-wsgi.conf /etc/httpd/conf.d/ This is something we could work into the package; we could potentially carry a distribution-specific patch that automatically creates this symlink during 'rb-site install'. Ideally, I'd like to do this as a build flag upstream, so that other distributions could do so as well, but a first path could be a Fedora/EPEL-specific patch. 7. Start web server $ sudo systemctl enable memcached $ sudo systemctl start memcached $ sudo systemctl enable httpd $ sudo systemctl start httpd Fedora has a strict policy against *automatically* enabling services to start at boot without user intervention. We *could* add a flag for 'rb-site install' that would say start automatically after completion, but not until we've already handled item 6 above. We won't be able to do so for memcached, however. Since it isn't guaranteed to be running on the same system... However this does raise the point that I should probably add memcached to the systemd unit file so that if it IS being run on the same system, it's started in the right order. Though this is a low risk of a race, since memcached isn't accessed by ReviewBoard at start-up time to the best of my knowledge; only on requests. So probably both will be available before clients are allowed to talk to the system. I'll patch that in the package but I'm not going to spin another build just
Re: EPEL - rb-site upgrade failure upon reboot prevents httpd startup
Hi Stephen, Your fix has resolved the issue on my system. Thanks for the rapid response. Cheers, Paul On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:39:53 PM UTC, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 16:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 11:04 -0700, Paul Fee wrote: Hi all (and Stephen Gallagher), I'm using CentOS7 + EPEL with ReviewBoard-2.0.11 (fresh install + today's updates). My site is listed in /etc/reviewboard/sites. When httpd starts up, it checks if any sites need upgraded. I'm using a mariadb database. When I reboot the box, httpd fails to startup. $ sudo systemctl status httpd httpd.service - The Apache HTTP Server Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service; enabled) Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d └─reviewboard-sites.conf Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2014-10-29 17:42:28 GMT; 16s ago Process: 1184 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/rb-site upgrade --all-sites (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py, line 435, in get_new_connection Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: conn = Database.connect(**conn_params) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/__init__.py, line 81, in Connect Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: return Connection(*args, **kwargs) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py, line 187, in __init__ Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: super(Connection, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs2) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: django.db.utils.OperationalError: (2002, Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '...k' (2)) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: httpd.service: control process exited, code=exited status=1 Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Failed to start The Apache HTTP Server. Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Unit httpd.service entered failed state. Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full. == I can manually start httpd as mariadb is now running by the time I've logged in. If I remove the /etc/reviewboard/sites file, the issue goes away. If I restore the file, the issue comes back. It looks like rb-site upgrade is being run before the database is available. Should systemd be using socket activation to start mariadb once a connection attempt is made? I believe the /etc/reviewboard/sites facility is unique to Fedora/EPEL, so this is could be a distro issue rather than ReviewBoard. MariaDB does not currently support socket-activation. What you need to do as a workaround right now is to add the following lines to /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d/reviewboard-sites.conf: [Unit] After=postgresql.service mariadb.service mysql.service I'll roll this into the Fedora and EPEL packages. I hadn't thought of it previously. (Note: it's safe to list all of them on the After= line as this only controls ordering; it doesn't cause any of them to be started that would not already have been). Now I just have to hope that Apache never grows a dependency on a database... :) Fedora 21: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-13850/ReviewBoard-2.0.11-2.fc21 EPEL 7: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ReviewBoard-2.0.11-2.el7 -- 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/d/optout.
Fresh install on CentOS+EPEL - manual steps necessary beyond package installation
Hi Stephen et al., I'm trying to get a CentOS7+EPEL install procedure that involves minimal setup. My aim is to get most functionality into the distro packages so that manual steps are reduced. Thanks for the bugs fixes and support so far. Here's a list of the manuals steps still necessary. I'd like feedback if any of these can be automated and incorporated in a package. For those that remain manual steps, should we update the install documentation to make this easier for others? Manual steps following CentOS7 minimal install: 1. Enable EPEL $ sudo yum install epel-release 2. Install reviewboard, database and memcached $ sudo yum install ReviewBoard mariadb-server memcached 3. Start database server and secure it $ sudo systemctl enable mariadb $ sudo systemctl start mariadb $ sudo mysql_secure_installation 4. Create database for use by reviewboard $ mysql -u root -p create user review_user@localhost identified by 'review_password'; create database reviewboard; GRANT ALL ON reviewboard.* TO review_user; 5. Create a reviewboard site $ sudo rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard/ 6. Adjust httpd configuration $ sudo ln -s /var/www/reviewboard.bfs.tsp/conf/apache-wsgi.conf /etc/httpd/conf.d/ 7. Start web server $ sudo systemctl enable memcached $ sudo systemctl start memcached $ sudo systemctl enable httpd $ sudo systemctl start httpd 8. Adjust site file permissions $ sudo chown -R apache /var/www/reviewboard/data /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media/ext /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/ext /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media/uploaded 9. Adjust site SELinux permissions $ sudo setsebool -P httpd_can_network_memcache 1 $ sudo chcon --type=httpd_sys_rw_content_t /var/www/reviewboard/data $ sudo chcon --type=httpd_sys_rw_content_t /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/media/ext $ sudo chcon --type=httpd_sys_rw_content_t /var/www/reviewboard/htdocs/static/ext 10. Open port 80 on firewall $ sudo firewall-cmd --add-port=80/tcp $ sudo firewall-cmd --permanent --add-port=80/tcp My understanding of packaging guidelines is that Fedora/RHEL packages shouldn't start services automatically, so perhaps these steps will always be necessary. Also the site directory does not below to the ReviewBoard package, so only rb-site would be able to fix the permission issues (steps 8 and 9). Have I missed anything in this list? Can any of these steps be incorporated in the ReviewBoard package or within the rb-site command? Perhaps rb-site could include hooks for distros to plug into their own customisations, e.g. SELinux configuration on Fedora/RHEL. Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout.
EPEL - rb-site upgrade failure upon reboot prevents httpd startup
Hi all (and Stephen Gallagher), I'm using CentOS7 + EPEL with ReviewBoard-2.0.11 (fresh install + today's updates). My site is listed in /etc/reviewboard/sites. When httpd starts up, it checks if any sites need upgraded. I'm using a mariadb database. When I reboot the box, httpd fails to startup. $ sudo systemctl status httpd httpd.service - The Apache HTTP Server Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service; enabled) Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d └─reviewboard-sites.conf Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2014-10-29 17:42:28 GMT; 16s ago Process: 1184 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/rb-site upgrade --all-sites (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py, line 435, in get_new_connection Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: conn = Database.connect(**conn_params) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/__init__.py, line 81, in Connect Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: return Connection(*args, **kwargs) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py, line 187, in __init__ Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: super(Connection, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs2) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 rb-site[1184]: django.db.utils.OperationalError: (2002, Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '...k' (2)) Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: httpd.service: control process exited, code=exited status=1 Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Failed to start The Apache HTTP Server. Oct 29 17:42:28 centos7 systemd[1]: Unit httpd.service entered failed state. Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full. == I can manually start httpd as mariadb is now running by the time I've logged in. If I remove the /etc/reviewboard/sites file, the issue goes away. If I restore the file, the issue comes back. It looks like rb-site upgrade is being run before the database is available. Should systemd be using socket activation to start mariadb once a connection attempt is made? I believe the /etc/reviewboard/sites facility is unique to Fedora/EPEL, so this is could be a distro issue rather than ReviewBoard. Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout.
Re: httpd remains in 'starting' state when starting via systemctl
Hi Stephen, I don't recall exact details, but I've seen the rb-site upgrade command fail on occasion. I think in my case the sequence was: * yum update [Included a reviewboard update] * reboot * While httpd service was starting rb-site upgrade was invoked. * rb-site upgrade failed because mariadb had not started yet. I manually fixed the issue by starting mariadb and running rb-site upgrade by hand. However it does appear there's a race condition between httpd startup and rb-site's dependency on the database being available. I'm not sure if this matches David's problem, but hopefully the above sequence will help you reproduce his issue and enhance the auto upgrade feature you implemented for Fedora packages. Thanks, Paul On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:14:34 AM UTC+1, David Carson wrote: On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:10:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 09/23/2014 03:38 PM, David Carson wrote: After following all directions for installing ReviewBoard 2.0 on CentOS 7, I am still seeing one error that bothers me. When I try to restart httpd, it remains in *'starting'* state and will never go to *'active (running)'* state. However, if I remove the following file, httpd starts and stops properly. /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d/reviewboards-sites.conf I only discovered this file because there was an error in /var/log/messages regarding the line type=oneshot (which should be *T*ype=oneshot). After correcting the spelling, I no longer see the error, but I cannot start httpd either. I have moved this file out of the way, and my ReviewBoard installation is now working, at least to the point of bringing up the interface and allowing me to login as admin. But I'm wondering what the repercussions of removing the systemd file might be. I'll field this one, since this bit is unique to my packages. The purpose of that oneshot target is to guarantee that the Review Board automatically runs 'rb-site upgrade' for all sites when it is started up (thus guaranteeing that if you perform an RPM upgrade, it will upgrade Review Board the next time it is started. I'm curious why it's hanging during the upgrade step, though. Can you check the journal for what's happening when you see that? The command 'journalctl -e -u httpd.service' should give you the output. It's possible that there's a bug in the upgrade routine. Have you checked for SELinux denials? Stephen, This is an internal-only server, so I turned off SELinux before doing anything else (and rebooted, of course). The journalctl command seems to indicate that the update finished: -- Logs begin at Tue 2014-09-23 18:56:22 EDT, end at Tue 2014-09-23 19:50:32 EDT. -- : : Sep 23 19:50:13 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Stopping The Apache HTTP Server... Sep 23 19:50:14 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Starting The Apache HTTP Server... Sep 23 19:50:14 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Started The Apache HTTP Server. Sep 23 19:50:27 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Stopping The Apache HTTP Server... Sep 23 19:50:28 pinehurst.e.com systemd[1]: Starting The Apache HTTP Server... Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Rebuilding directory structure Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Updating database. This may take a while. Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: The log output below, including warnings and errors, Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: can be ignored unless upgrade fails. Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: -- begin log output -- Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Creating tables ... Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Installing custom SQL ... Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Installing indexes ... Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: No evolution required. Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: --- end log output --- Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: Resetting in-database caches. Sep 23 19:50:32 pinehurst.e.com rb-site[3228]: *Upgrade complete!* But the systemctl command itself is sitting there, not returning to the command prompt, and the status shows that it is still activating, but never activated: (0)[root@pinehurst ~] systemctl status httpd.service httpd.service - The Apache HTTP Server Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service; enabled) Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service.d └─reviewboard-sites.conf *Active: activating (start) *since Tue 2014-09-23 19:50:28 EDT; 11min ago Process: 3223 ExecStop=/bin/kill -WINCH ${MAINPID} (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Process: 3228 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/rb-site upgrade --all-sites (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 3235 (httpd) Status:
Re: RBTools 0.6.2 is released
Hi Stephen, Nice to see RBTools packaged for EPEL7. What's the status of ReviewBoard2 for EPEL7? Need any help? Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Fedora rawhide: RB Dashboard missing Edit Columns button and column styling
Thanks Stephen and Christian, I've downloaded the rawhide updates from Koji and confirmed they've fixed this issue. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Fedora rawhide: RB Dashboard missing Edit Columns button and column styling
Hi Stephen, Comparing the HTML using Firefox/Firebug, I see both good and bad pages have the correct HTML to display the Edit columns heading. However the bad page has missing CSS styling. On Fedora rawhide, with an up to date locate database, I can see an empty CSS file that looks suspicious. $ ls -l `locate datagrid | grep css` -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6251 May 27 15:03 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.css -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6316 May 27 15:03 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.da6c340af879.css -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6316 May 27 02:01 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.6521a0d8b348.css -rw-r--r--. 1 root root0 May 27 15:03 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.css -rw-r--r--. 1 root root0 May 27 15:03 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/htdocs/static/djblets/css/datagrid.min.d41d8cd98f00.css -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6251 May 27 02:01 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/djblets/static/djblets/css/datagrid.css I expect those two empty files are (part of) the problem. According to rpm -qf they're both owned by python-djblets-0.8.1-1.fc21.noarch. Thanks, Paul On 2 June 2014 14:14, Stephen Gallagher step...@gallagherhome.com wrote: On 05/30/2014 01:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 05/30/2014 12:57 PM, Paul Fee wrote: Hi all, On my Fedora rawhide system with RB2.0 the dashboard doesn't look right. * The column headers are missing their styling. * The Edit Columns button is missing. I see this with a freshly created site as illustrated below: There's no issue with RB1.7.25 on Centos6 nor RB2.0.1 hosted at http://demo.reviewboard.org/ I'm suspecting the issue is unique to the Rawhide packages. Has anyone else seen this or able to reproduce? I saw that on an instance I created the other day as well. I'll look into it next week. Ok, I'm pretty stumped here. There's nothing obviously wrong with the build [1] [2], but I'm getting output that is apparently *slightly* malformed, such that neither Chrome or Firefox will render it properly. I do not have a strong background in HTML/JS, so I can't spot the issue. I'm attaching the saved page, hopefully someone can take a look and tell me where I screwed up. [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-djblets/0.8.1/1.fc21/data/logs/noarch/build.log [2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ReviewBoard/2.0.1/1.fc21/data/logs/noarch/build.log -- 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 a topic in the Google Groups reviewboard group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reviewboard/31p7hxUkUX4/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Problems upgrading from RB1.5 to RB2.0RC3
Thank you Christian and Stephen, I'm now able to upgrade my RB1.5 database to RB2.0 using the packages from Fedora Rawhide. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Announcing the release of Review Board 2.0!
Thanks, it's working now following the python-djblets-0.8-7 update. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Announcing the release of Review Board 2.0!
Hi Stephen, I updated a rawhide machine to ReviewBoard-2.0-12.fc21.noarch. Upon invoking rb-site, instead of usage help, I get the following error: === $ rb-site Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/rb-site, line 5, in module from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py, line 2713, in module parse_requirements(__requires__), Environment() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py, line 567, in resolve raise DistributionNotFound(req) pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: Djblets=0.8,0.9 === According to rpm the ReviewBoard package has its dependencies satisfied: $ rpm -q --requires ReviewBoard | grep djblets python-djblets = 0.8-6 $ rpm -q python-djblets python-djblets-0.8-6.fc21.rc2.noarch Any ideas why rb-site isn't satisfied at runtime with the version of Djblets? Looking in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.8rc2-py2.7.egg-info/PKG-INFO, I see Version: 0.8rc2. Would the rc2 interfere with the version comparison? Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout.
Problems upgrading from RB1.5 to RB2.0RC3
Hi all, I'm attempting a Reviewboard 1.5-2.0 migration. An old server has RB1.5 I'm testing moving the data to a new RB2.0RC3 server. Old server details: Ubuntu 10.04 Manual installation of Reviewboard 1.5 Dump database: $ mysqldump -u admin -p reviewboard /tmp/reviewboard.mysql.dump Edit dump file to replace MyISAM with InnoDB engine. New server: Fedora rawhide, RB 2.0RC3 from standard repo. Create new site: rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard Drop mysql reviewboard database. Create new (empty) database Import data from old server: mysql -p reviewboard reviewboard.mysql.dump Upgrade database: rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard This fails with the following output: $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard Rebuilding directory structure Updating database. This may take a while. The log output below, including warnings and errors, can be ignored unless upgrade fails. -- begin log output -- Creating tables ... Creating table extensions_registeredextension Creating table attachments_fileattachment Creating table diffviewer_filediffdata Creating table hostingsvcs_hostingserviceaccount Creating table reviews_fileattachmentcomment Creating table site_localsite_users Creating table site_localsite_admins Creating table site_localsite Creating table accounts_localsiteprofile Upgrading Review Board from 1.5 to 2.0 RC3 There are unapplied evolutions for auth. There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes. There are unapplied evolutions for sessions. There are unapplied evolutions for attachments. There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs. There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer. There are unapplied evolutions for hostingsvcs. There are unapplied evolutions for reviews. There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools. There are unapplied evolutions for site. Adding baseline version for new models Evolutions in attachments baseline: file_attachment_orig_filename, file_attachment_file_max_length_512, file_attachment_repo_info, file_attachment_repo_path_no_index, file_attachment_repo_revision_max_length_64 Evolutions in site baseline: localsite_public Evolutions in hostingsvcs baseline: account_hosting_url, account_hosting_url_max_length_255, account_unique_together_baseline Project signature has changed - an evolution is required There are unapplied evolutions for accounts. Installing custom SQL ... Installing indexes ... Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) Registering new SCM Tool Plastic SCM (reviewboard.scmtools.plastic.PlasticTool) in database ERROR:root:Unexpected error: 'NoneType' object is not iterable Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 65, in handle self.evolve(*app_labels, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 125, in evolve sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app)) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 165, in evolve_app app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 303, in to_sql sql.extend(mutator.to_sql()) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 186, in to_sql return self.evolver.generate_table_ops_sql(self, self._ops) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py, line 42, in generate_table_ops_sql prev_sql_result, prev_op) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py, line 92, in generate_table_op_sql sql_result.add(op['sql']) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py, line 105, in add super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py, line 30, in add self.sql += sql_or_result TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable Traceback (most recent call last): File /bin/rb-site, line 9, in module load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc3', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1733, in main command.run() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1556, in run site.migrate_database() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 425, in migrate_database self.run_manage_command(evolve, [--noinput, --execute]) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 626, in run_manage_command execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py, line 399, in execute_from_command_line utility.execute() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py, line 392, in execute self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
Re: Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.
to set all table types to InnoDB and re-import/upgrade. This is a more general MySQL issue, and not one we really have control over during upgrade. Christian On Thursday, May 1, 2014, Paul Fee paul.f@gmail.com wrote: Hi Christian, I found your fix on github and manually applied the change to rbsite.py https://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/commit/11a850ca279416feed96beae9efd6c4c1f188f15 Repeating the procedure allows rb-site upgrade to get past the previous error: django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, Unknown column 'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause') However, I see new errors now: = $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard Rebuilding directory structure Updating database. This may take a while. The log output below, including warnings and errors, can be ignored unless upgrade fails. -- begin log output -- Creating tables ... Creating table extensions_registeredextension Creating table attachments_fileattachment [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then continue. [!] Details: (1005, 'Can\'t create table `reviewboard`.`#sql-605_11` (errno: 150 Foreign key constraint is incorrectly formed)') Press Enter to continue == Pressing enter a few times gives the same error for the following tables: * site_localsite_users * site_localsite_admins * accounts_localsiteprofile After that rb-site continues and finally exits with this error output: = Installing custom SQL ... Installing indexes ... Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) Registering new SCM Tool Plastic SCM (reviewboard.scmtools.plastic.PlasticTool) in database ERROR:root:Unexpected error: 'NoneType' object is not iterable Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 65, in handle self.evolve(*app_labels, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 125, in evolve sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app)) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 165, in evolve_app app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 303, in to_sql sql.extend(mutator.to_sql()) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 186, in to_sql return self.evolver.generate_table_ops_sql(self, self._ops) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py, line 42, in generate_table_ops_sql prev_sql_result, prev_op) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py, line 92, in generate_table_op_sql sql_result.add(op['sql']) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py, line 105, in add super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py, line 30, in add self.sql += sql_or_result TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable Traceback (most recent call last): File /bin/rb-site, line 9, in module load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1733, in main command.run() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1556, in run site.migrate_database() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 425, in migrate_database self.run_manage_command(evolve, [--noinput, --execute]) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 626, in run_manage_command execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py, line 399, in execute_from_command_line utility.execute() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py, line 392, in execute self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py, line 242, in run_from_argv self.execute(*args, **options.__dict__) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py, line 285, in execute output = self.handle(*args, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 65, in handle self.evolve(*app_labels, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 125, in evolve sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app)) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 165
Re: Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.
Hi Christian, I found your fix on github and manually applied the change to rbsite.py https://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/commit/11a850ca279416feed96beae9efd6c4c1f188f15 Repeating the procedure allows rb-site upgrade to get past the previous error: django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, Unknown column 'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause') However, I see new errors now: = $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard Rebuilding directory structure Updating database. This may take a while. The log output below, including warnings and errors, can be ignored unless upgrade fails. -- begin log output -- Creating tables ... Creating table extensions_registeredextension Creating table attachments_fileattachment [!] There was an error synchronizing the database. Make sure the database is created and has the appropriate permissions, and then continue. [!] Details: (1005, 'Can\'t create table `reviewboard`.`#sql-605_11` (errno: 150 Foreign key constraint is incorrectly formed)') Press Enter to continue == Pressing enter a few times gives the same error for the following tables: * site_localsite_users * site_localsite_admins * accounts_localsiteprofile After that rb-site continues and finally exits with this error output: = Installing custom SQL ... Installing indexes ... Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) Registering new SCM Tool Plastic SCM (reviewboard.scmtools.plastic.PlasticTool) in database ERROR:root:Unexpected error: 'NoneType' object is not iterable Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 65, in handle self.evolve(*app_labels, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 125, in evolve sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app)) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 165, in evolve_app app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 303, in to_sql sql.extend(mutator.to_sql()) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 186, in to_sql return self.evolver.generate_table_ops_sql(self, self._ops) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py, line 42, in generate_table_ops_sql prev_sql_result, prev_op) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/common.py, line 92, in generate_table_op_sql sql_result.add(op['sql']) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py, line 105, in add super(AlterTableSQLResult, self).add(sql_result) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/db/sql_result.py, line 30, in add self.sql += sql_or_result TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable Traceback (most recent call last): File /bin/rb-site, line 9, in module load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1733, in main command.run() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1556, in run site.migrate_database() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 425, in migrate_database self.run_manage_command(evolve, [--noinput, --execute]) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 626, in run_manage_command execute_from_command_line([__file__, cmd] + params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py, line 399, in execute_from_command_line utility.execute() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py, line 392, in execute self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py, line 242, in run_from_argv self.execute(*args, **options.__dict__) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py, line 285, in execute output = self.handle(*args, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 65, in handle self.evolve(*app_labels, **options) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 125, in evolve sql.extend(self.evolve_app(app)) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/management/commands/evolve.py, line 165, in evolve_app app_mutator_sql = app_mutator.to_sql() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 303, in to_sql sql.extend(mutator.to_sql()) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django_evolution/mutators.py, line 186, in to_sql return
Re: Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.
Hi Chris, I repeated the test to ensure the database wasn't empty. I confirmed that I'd imported the RB1.5 database, ready for rb-site upgrade. Steps: # rb-site install /var/www/reviewboard mysql drop database reviewboard; mysql create database reviewboard; # mysql -uroot -p reviewboard ~/reviewboard.mysql.dump = Note reviewboard database is no longer empty, it contains content from RB1.5 from a separate machine. # rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard Result: Same failure as previously posted. django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, Unknown column 'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause') This migration procedure works on Centos6.5 with RB1.7.22, but failed on Fedora rawhide with RB2.0RC2 (from Stephen Gallagher's COPR repo). Is there more info I can collect to help debug? How far back does RB2.0 support an upgrade from? Should I upgrade via an intermediate version? Thanks, Paul On 18 April 2014 20:00, Christian Hammond chip...@chipx86.com wrote: Hi Paul, rb-site upgrade isn't meant to be used on a completely empty database. It expects an existing install, so when you dropped and recreated the database, it was unable to find the state it needs to perform an actual upgrade. If you need to just start fresh from a database, you can re-run install, or: $ rb-site manage /path/to/site syncdb That should generate a fresh new database (if there isn't already any schema). Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Paul Fee paul.f@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I was testing migration from a 1.5 system to 2.0RC2. I took a mysql dump from the old system and copied it to the new system. Following an rb-site install on the new system, I dropped and recreated the reviewboard database, then tried rb-site upgrade path. This procedure worked on CentOS6/EPEL/ReviewBoard 1.7.22, however with Fedora rawhide/COPR/Reviewboard 2.0RC2, I get this error: $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard Traceback (most recent call last): File /bin/rb-site, line 9, in module load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1727, in main command.run() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1530, in run diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 443, in get_diff_dedup_needed return FileDiff.objects.unmigrated().count() 0 File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py, line 291, in count return self.query.get_count(using=self.db) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py, line 390, in get_count number = obj.get_aggregation(using=using)[None] File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py, line 356, in get_aggregation result = query.get_compiler(using).execute_sql(SINGLE) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py, line 782, in execute_sql cursor.execute(sql, params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py, line 53, in execute return self.cursor.execute(sql, params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/utils.py, line 99, in __exit__ six.reraise(dj_exc_type, dj_exc_value, traceback) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py, line 53, in execute return self.cursor.execute(sql, params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py, line 124, in execute return self.cursor.execute(query, args) File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/cursors.py, line 174, in execute self.errorhandler(self, exc, value) File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py, line 36, in defaulterrorhandler raise errorclass, errorvalue django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, Unknown column 'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause') Since this worked with reviewboard 1.7, I presume this is a bug in 2.0. Would you like more data to help diagnose the issue? Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout. -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com
memcached problems following 1.5 to 1.7.22 migration
Hi all, I'm testing a migration from 1.5 to 1.7.22. Summary of migration steps. Old system: = Ubuntu 10.04 Manual installation of Reviewboard 1.5 Dump database: $ mysqldump -u admin -p reviewboard /tmp/reviewboard.mysql.dump New system (separate host, don't want to risk in place upgrade) == Minimal install of CentOS 6.5 Add EPEL repo yum install ReviewBoard mysql-server memcached system-config-firewall-tui Setup mysql user and create fresh reviewboard database. rb-site install path Drop mysql reviewboard database. Copy mysql dump from old system Import database: mysql -p reviewboard reviewboard.mysql.dump rb-site upgrade path The upgrade works, the old reviews and users are present. However the new system isn't using memcached. On the Admin UI, the server cache page reports: Cache backend: django.core.cache.backends.memcached.CacheClass Statistics are not available for this backend Manual telnet to memcached, port 11211, then issue stats command shows no activity: == STAT cmd_get 0 STAT cmd_set 0 STAT cmd_flush 0 STAT get_hits 0 STAT get_misses 0 STAT delete_misses 0 STAT delete_hits 0 STAT incr_misses 0 STAT incr_hits 0 STAT decr_misses 0 STAT decr_hits 0 STAT cas_misses 0 STAT cas_hits 0 STAT cas_badval 0 == Looking into the memcached settings, I see that site/conf/settings_local.py has: # Cache backend settings. CACHES = { 'default': { 'BACKEND': 'django.core.cache.backends.memcached.MemcachedCache', 'LOCATION': 'localhost:11211', }, } However within the reviewboard database in mysql, the siteconfig_siteconfiguration table has: cache_backend: {default: {LOCATION: [localhost:11211], BACKEND: django.core.cache.backends.memcached.CacheClass}} To me it looks like the settings_local.py configuration has come from reviewboard 1.7.22 as a result of rb-site install and the mysql configuration from reviewboard 1.5 as a result of importing the dump from the old system. The old system is using Django 1.2.3, the new one Django 1.4.8. The bug appears to be that rb-site upgrade hasn't adjusted the siteconfig_siteconfiguration table to take account of the new memcached class used in Django 1.4.8. Is my analysis accurate? Should I manually adjust the siteconfig_siteconfiguration table to fix this? Can this be fixed in reviewboard so others don't experience the same issue? Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout.
Reviewboard 2.0: rb-site upgrade failed migrating from 1.5.
Hi all, I was testing migration from a 1.5 system to 2.0RC2. I took a mysql dump from the old system and copied it to the new system. Following an rb-site install on the new system, I dropped and recreated the reviewboard database, then tried rb-site upgrade path. This procedure worked on CentOS6/EPEL/ReviewBoard 1.7.22, however with Fedora rawhide/COPR/Reviewboard 2.0RC2, I get this error: $ sudo rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard Traceback (most recent call last): File /bin/rb-site, line 9, in module load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.0rc2', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1727, in main command.run() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 1530, in run diff_dedup_needed = site.get_diff_dedup_needed() File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/cmdline/rbsite.py, line 443, in get_diff_dedup_needed return FileDiff.objects.unmigrated().count() 0 File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/query.py, line 291, in count return self.query.get_count(using=self.db) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py, line 390, in get_count number = obj.get_aggregation(using=using)[None] File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/query.py, line 356, in get_aggregation result = query.get_compiler(using).execute_sql(SINGLE) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py, line 782, in execute_sql cursor.execute(sql, params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py, line 53, in execute return self.cursor.execute(sql, params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/utils.py, line 99, in __exit__ six.reraise(dj_exc_type, dj_exc_value, traceback) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/util.py, line 53, in execute return self.cursor.execute(sql, params) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/mysql/base.py, line 124, in execute return self.cursor.execute(query, args) File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/cursors.py, line 174, in execute self.errorhandler(self, exc, value) File /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py, line 36, in defaulterrorhandler raise errorclass, errorvalue django.db.utils.OperationalError: (1054, Unknown column 'diffviewer_filediff.diff_hash_id' in 'where clause') Since this worked with reviewboard 1.7, I presume this is a bug in 2.0. Would you like more data to help diagnose the issue? Thanks, Paul -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Required vs Optional Reviewers
Also, on review notification emails, people get email to them and the group gets CCed. Which fits what the OP asked for. -- 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: ReviewBoard server tips over about twice a week
MaxRequestsPerChild of 4000 should be fine. I happen to have mine configured to 3000. I didn't find the root cause of my server's lock ups, at the time I noted increased memory use by Apache. A few months of evidence shows the change to be effective. BTW I'm running RB 1.5 on an old Ubuntu release, so my problems may well have been fixed in more recent versions. I expect you've got server issues different from mine, but MaxRequestsPerChild shouldn't do any harm. On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:19:17 PM UTC+1, Steve wrote: Thanks Paul, that's helpful. We're using the prefork MPM. Do you think 4000 is too large a number for MaxRequetsPerChild? --Steve On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:15:35 AM UTC-7, Paul Fee wrote: Your httpd.conf suggests you've got mod_status enabled. Therefore visit the /server-status URL on your web server. This should cause Apache httpd to provide a page that summarises the status of all its workers. That may help you understand why you've got more httpd processes than expected. Also, I've found the MaxRequestsPerChild directive to be useful on an installation of mine that would lock up occasionally. Your config shows the directive set to 4000 for the prefork MPM, but 0 (infinity) for the worker MPM. Check which MPM you're using (execute httpd -V) and ensure that MaxRequestsPerChild is taking effect. The config file contains a set of MPM tuning directives, duplicated for prefork and worker, make sure the required configuration is actually active. -- Paul On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:36:59 PM UTC+1, Steve wrote: I see the 'server cache' information in the admin page. It shows the memory usage at around 150MB, so clearly 64MB was not enough. Unfortunately, the load average once again climbed over 100 and I had close to 200 apache processes running. It's baffling. Can you guide me on how to limit the number of apache processes and threads? I've attached the apache httpd.conf file. Thanks Christian. --steve -- 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: ReviewBoard server tips over about twice a week
Your httpd.conf suggests you've got mod_status enabled. Therefore visit the /server-status URL on your web server. This should cause Apache httpd to provide a page that summarises the status of all its workers. That may help you understand why you've got more httpd processes than expected. Also, I've found the MaxRequestsPerChild directive to be useful on an installation of mine that would lock up occasionally. Your config shows the directive set to 4000 for the prefork MPM, but 0 (infinity) for the worker MPM. Check which MPM you're using (execute httpd -V) and ensure that MaxRequestsPerChild is taking effect. The config file contains a set of MPM tuning directives, duplicated for prefork and worker, make sure the required configuration is actually active. -- Paul On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:36:59 PM UTC+1, Steve wrote: I see the 'server cache' information in the admin page. It shows the memory usage at around 150MB, so clearly 64MB was not enough. Unfortunately, the load average once again climbed over 100 and I had close to 200 apache processes running. It's baffling. Can you guide me on how to limit the number of apache processes and threads? I've attached the apache httpd.conf file. Thanks Christian. --steve -- 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.