Support for HTTP Basic Authentication in RBTools

We use Review Board at work. It is installed on a web server that is protected by HTTP Basic Authentication. We haven't been able to use RBTools to interact with it as we couldn't find the right configuration to pass this authentication wall. After looking through the code, I didn't see how it

Re: Rb upgrade to 2.0 and extensions

On Monday, June 23, 2014 4:19:49 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote: Oh, huh. Turns out there’s some incompatible Ruby fork of lessc with the same version scheme. Awesome. You want the one installed by 'npm -g install less’, not the one from gem. Christian Thanks - that was it.

Re: Rb upgrade to 2.0 and extensions

And now you can just easy_install it! :) Hopefully it’ll at least make things easier in the future. Christian --  Christian Hammond - christ...@beanbaginc.com Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com On June 24, 2014 at 8:23:34 AM, Peter Snelling

Error when view diff at Review Request

Dear Mr Christian Hammond, I installed Reviewboard (2.0.2) and Perforce on same machine (Ubuntu 12.04) and Rbt(0.6.1) When have a review request and i want to diff file and there is a error occurred. (u'Value to convert is unexpected type %s', type 'NoneType') Traceback (most recent call

Re: Active Directory - Can't Assign New User to Review

Sorry, busy few days. You would need to edit reviewboard/accounts/backends.py and look for ActiveDirectoryBackend. In it, you will find a ‘get_or_create_user’ function. I’d start by adding a logging statement just below where username is assigned:    

Re: Support for HTTP Basic Authentication in RBTools

Hi Pierre, It’s not well-supported. At one point, it did work, but it appears to be very rare that people have this sort of setup, since most will use LDAP or ActiveDirectory or something if they want centralized authentication. Just out of curiosity, how much further do you get if oyu change

Re: Support for HTTP Basic Authentication in RBTools

Christian, Thank you for your response. I understand that this is a very rare use case. You are correct, I don't need to create a new password manager. I modified the code to use the existing ReviewBoardHTTPPasswordMgr. Relevant code is now: # Set up the HTTP libraries to support all of the

Re: Support for HTTP Basic Authentication in RBTools

I think the ideal solution is to not require passing in the http_basic_auth structure, but rather allowing it to work with the existing username and password data. It may require a new realm option, though. I haven’t looked into it enough. Christian --  Christian Hammond - 

Re: Support for HTTP Basic Authentication in RBTools

Theoretically speaking, you could have arbitrary realms, usernames and passwords to keep track of. They don't have anything to do with the application credential info. So, I am not sure that inferring the basic auth credentials from the app credentials is a good idea. I am not even sure this

Re: Active Directory - Can't Assign New User to Review

I modified the one in /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-2.0.1-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/accounts/backend.py Then I restarted Apache, and reloaded the page, and tried to add a user who doesn't have an RB account. (I see an updated pyc in that folder as well) But I don't see

Re: Error when view diff at Review Request

*Dear Mr Christian Hammond,* *Actually at this time, i let it be default. I am wondering that reviewboard support UTF8 right?* *If not, may i must add UTF-8 at advance setting.* *Now i'm facing a new error:* Traceback (most recent call last): File

captcha for registration broken link on RB2.0.2

I tried to register captcha SYSTEM SETTINGS - BASIC AUTHENTICATION SETTINGS - follow the link that is described here To enable this, you will need to go here https://admin.recaptcha.net/recaptcha/createsite/ to register an account and type in your new keys below., but seems like is broken.

LDAP Setting For Reviewboard

Hi all, I have installed reviewboard and want to login using LDAP Credentials. I configured all mandatory information like LDAP Server: ,LDAP Base DN:, Username Attribute, and Review Board LDAP Bind Account:ures/password. I am not able to login using LDAP credentials. I am sure LDAP credentials

Issue 3438 in reviewboard: registration notification false positive?

Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3438 by matthias...@famsik.de: registration notification false positive? http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3438 *** READ THIS BEFORE POSTING! *** *** You must complete this form in its entirety, or your

Issue 3439 in reviewboard: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE'

Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3439 by david.ga...@gmail.com: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE' http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3439 What version are you running? RBTools 6.0.0 What's the URL of the

Re: Issue 3439 in reviewboard: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE'

Comment #1 on issue 3439 by david.ga...@gmail.com: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE' http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3439 I cannot edit the description, but the proper steps to reproduce is: 1. 'rbt post -d file1@@/main/1:file2@@/main/2'

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #1 on issue 3433 by determin...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 hi, i got the same issue. It's good I checked it's already reported. Here is a dirty workaround to unblock you while waiting for the

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #2 on issue 3433 by nick.mai...@rockwellcollins.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 Thanks! Actually have the exact same hack for now and it seems to be doing the trick. -- You received this message because

Issue 3440 in reviewboard: AssertionError displaying changes from diff rev 1 to 2

Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 3440 by bruce.c...@gmail.com: AssertionError displaying changes from diff rev 1 to 2 http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3440 What version are you running? 2.0.1 What's the URL of the page containing the

Re: Issue 3440 in reviewboard: AssertionError displaying changes from diff rev 1 to 2

Updates: Status: NeedInfo Comment #1 on issue 3440 by chip...@gmail.com: AssertionError displaying changes from diff rev 1 to 2 http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3440 Huh, haven't seen that before. I'll unfortunately need the diff in question in order to be able

Re: Issue 3427 in reviewboard: ValueError: too many values to unpack when upload a pdf file

Comment #3 on issue 3427 by chip...@gmail.com: ValueError: too many values to unpack when upload a pdf file http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3427 I don't know off-hand, but the very first thing I'd want you to do before looking into it further is to upgrade to a modern

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Updates: Status: NeedInfo Comment #3 on issue 3433 by chip...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 So the CVS server and RB are on the same box, with the repository configured as a local path? -- You

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #4 on issue 3433 by determin...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 hi, in my case they are on separate servers. RBT used to work very good and I was able to see created review requests and their diffs.

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #5 on issue 3433 by chip...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 We do normalize paths now to work around issues elsewhere. Seems like CVS broke along with that. Would you be able to supply a formal

Re: Issue 2269 in reviewboard: Allow inline review for non-text file types

Comment #12 on issue 2269 by chip...@gmail.com: Allow inline review for non-text file types http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2269 The original report was about adding a feature to do review of text files, which we did not have before. We never closed the bug when we

Re: Issue 3432 in reviewboard: Empty files are not pushed to review board, nor pulled with 'patch'

Comment #1 on issue 3432 by chip...@gmail.com: Empty files are not pushed to review board, nor pulled with 'patch' http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3432 We have this fixed in Review Board. We're waiting to do the big update on RBCommons, and then this will work for Git

Re: Issue 3434 in reviewboard: Search results don't include file names.

Updates: Status: NeedInfo Comment #1 on issue 3434 by chip...@gmail.com: Search results don't include file names. http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3434 Try prefixing the file path with 'file:' and see if that gets any further. -- You received this message

Re: Issue 3435 in reviewboard: Example crontab shows deprecated index rb-site command

Comment #1 on issue 3435 by chip...@gmail.com: Example crontab shows deprecated index rb-site command http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3435 I've confirmed that the newer crontabs have the correct contents. We should consider just overwriting the generated crontab in

Re: Issue 3436 in reviewboard: Clicking and dragging on linenumbers in diffviewer doesn't allow user to comment

Updates: Labels: -Priority-Medium Priority-Critical Milestone-Release2.1 Component-DiffViewer Comment #1 on issue 3436 by chip...@gmail.com: Clicking and dragging on linenumbers in diffviewer doesn't allow user to comment http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3436 Ick.

Re: Issue 3434 in reviewboard: Search results don't include file names.

Comment #2 on issue 3434 by peter.sn...@gmail.com: Search results don't include file names. http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3434 Ah, adding file: works fine! Was that documented somewhere? You can close this issue. -- You received this message because this project is

Re: Issue 3434 in reviewboard: Search results don't include file names.

Updates: Status: UserError Comment #3 on issue 3434 by chip...@gmail.com: Search results don't include file names. http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3434 Yep, plus some other fields that may be handy:

Re: Issue 3437 in reviewboard: Double-clicking to Add a Comment in the Diff View Discards Any Comments Made

Updates: Status: Confirmed Labels: Component-DiffViewer EasyFix Milestone-Release2.0.x Comment #1 on issue 3437 by chip...@gmail.com: Double-clicking to Add a Comment in the Diff View Discards Any Comments Made http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3437 Looked

Re: Issue 3438 in reviewboard: registration notification false positive?

Updates: Status: Confirmed Labels: Component-Accounts EasyFix Milestone-Release2.0.x Comment #1 on issue 3438 by chip...@gmail.com: registration notification false positive? http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3438 (No comment was entered for this change.)

Re: Issue 3439 in reviewboard: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE'

Updates: Status: Confirmed Owner: trowb...@gmail.com Labels: Milestone-Release2.0.x Comment #2 on issue 3439 by chip...@gmail.com: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE' http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3439 Looks to be

Re: Issue 3439 in reviewboard: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE'

Updates: Labels: -Milestone-Release2.0.x Milestone-RBTools-Release0.6.x Project-RBTools Comment #3 on issue 3439 by chip...@gmail.com: 'ClearCaseClient' object has no attribute 'REVISION_BRANCH_BASE' http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3439 (No comment was entered for

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #6 on issue 3433 by determin...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 Hi, to be honest I am new in contributing but I can try. Do you think the 'fix' in

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #7 on issue 3433 by chip...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 I think the fix is reasonable. You'd need a development environment to confirm the unit test suite and to write a new test. It'd take a

Re: Issue 2269 in reviewboard: Allow inline review for non-text file types

Comment #13 on issue 2269 by ymik...@gmail.com: Allow inline review for non-text file types http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=2269 Yes and no. My bug is about not being able to review java and perl files as text files. I found a workaround for java files using IE to

Re: Issue 3433 in reviewboard: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database

Comment #8 on issue 3433 by determin...@gmail.com: CVS file path stored incorrectly in database http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/issues/detail?id=3433 hi, just I did two screenshot before and after the change proposed for the same review request. Btw there is a detailed error stack. If