Hi,
I'm doing a test upgrade from ReviewBoard 1.7.9 to 2.5.4 but 'rb-site
upgrade' fails...
# rb-site upgrade /var/www/my-site/
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/rb-site", line 9, in
load_entry_point('ReviewBoard==2.5.4', 'console_scripts', 'rb-site')()
File
"/usr/lib/p
gt; --
> Christian Hammond
> President/CEO of Beanbag <https://www.beanbaginc.com/>
> Makers of Review Board <https://www.reviewboard.org/>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> H
installed? It looks like there's some weirdness
>>> going on with the module.
>>>
>>> Can you verify that there's no "reviewboard" directory in the directory
>>> you're in when running rb-site upgrade?
>>>
>>> Christian
>&g
;>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our live
>>>> reviewboard server.
>>>> There is no reviewboard dir when running the rb-site upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> O
t; Hi Christian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our
>>>>> live reviewboard server.
>>>>> There is no reviewboard dir when running
Hi,
>>> import reviewboard.scmtools
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ImportError: No module named scmtools
>>> print reviewboard.scmtools
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'scmtools'
>>> import revi
Hi,
We have recently upgraded our ReviewBoard from version 1.7.22 to 2.5.10 -
as well as also upgrading from RHEL 6.x to CentOS 7.3.1611.
Since then we have a review that cannot be interacted with...can't post a
new review or comment, adjust existing comments etc - or even delete the
review.
We
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the quick response.
I'm not particularly comfortable with SQL but i'll ask a colleague if he
can help out - i'll let you know.
Thanks
Rob
On Friday, 26 May 2017 09:24:00 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have recently upgraded our ReviewBoard from version 1.7.2
Hi Christian,
Quick question from our DBA...
-
what does they mean exactly by 'unset the field' - setting the field to
null?
I have checked both commit_id and changenum to identify the fields that
have duplicate values (select commit_id, count(*) c from
Hi,
Since we upgraded to RB 2.5.10 there has been a change in the way our
developers can upload attachments.
Attachments added by anyone other than the submitter do not seem to upload.
This is because it puts the RB form into a draft state and only the
submitter has visibility a
Hi,
Since upgrading to RB 2.5.10 our developers have noticed they can not post
a review without uploading a diff.
Previously, using the web interface you were able to create a RB form
without a diff – Can we configure RB to allow this again?
Thanks
Rob
--
Supercharge your Review Board with P
request are administrators or those with special permissions set.
>
> Anyone should be able to comment on any file attachment after it's been
> published. Is that not working?
>
> What version did you upgrade from?
>
> Christian
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:10 AM, &
Oh and yes, anyone can add comments so thats fine...
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:10:01 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Since we upgraded to RB 2.5.10 there has been a change in the way our
> developers can upload attachments.
>
>
> Attachments added by anyone other than the submitter
Hi Christian,
This is from our DBA...
ok, in that case we either have no problematic dupes or we are not sure how
to find them. All dupes mentioned before have same changenum but different
repository_id.. All items returned by executing below code have different
repository_id:
“select a
Hi Christian,
You'll have to excuse me, i do't use ReviewBoard myself so just relaying
messages from our dev team.
When you do this then you are unable to add a diff at a later stage.
It creates the form as a non-repository form.
The workflow we sometimes use is:
1. Create form and fill in
Hi,
I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
indexing doesn't seem to complete.
The index starts OK, but after a while stops with this error...
ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-package
As this happens during the index, it is preventing us from having full
search results - any help would be much appreciated as this is causing
quite a few issues for our development team.
Please let me know if you need any more info.
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Back
Hi Christian,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Is this what you're after?
python-django-haystack.noarch
2.3.1-1.el7
Thanksl
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5
Hi Chris,
Yep, its True.
# rb-site manage /var/www/reviews shell
Python 2.7.5 (default, Aug 4 2017, 00:39:18)
[GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-16)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
(InteractiveConsole)
>>> from reviewboard.reviews.models import R
Here you go...
>>> import reviewboard
>>> print reviewboard.VERSION
(2, 5, 16, 0, u'final', 0, True)
>>> print reviewboard.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
>>> import haystack
>>> print haystack.__version__
(2, 1, 1, u'dev')
>>> print haystack.__file__
/usr/lib/py
Perhaps we're able to add some kind of debugging to the indexing to provide
more info?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to complete.
> The index st
doing for the attribute lookup, but I'd
> start by trying to solve the version issue, make sure you're running a 2.3.x
> release.
>
> I would be interested to find out what line 86
> of/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py looks like.
>
> Christian
>
Hi Christian,
We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed.
python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7
Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in the
correct place?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our Review
range.
>
> Could you show me that one line in fields.py?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 13:22 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> We deinately only have version 2.3.1
27;ll see if that logic
> differs from what is in 2.3.1.
>
> Christian
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard
>> wrote:
>> Sorry, which one line?
>>
>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 00:59:12 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wr
was a couple e-mails ago, but can you actually just attach
>> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py? I'll see if that logic
>> differs from what is in 2.3.1.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' v
Hi Christian,
See the new output below...
Removing all documents from your index because you said so.
All documents removed.
Indexing 558 users
Indexing 27878 review requests
ERROR:root:Error updating reviews using default
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packag
args['null'] = True
if 'facet_for' in kwargs:
self.facet_for = kwargs['facet_for']
del(kwargs['facet_for'])
return kwargs
def get_facet_for_name(self):
return self.facet_for or self.instance_name
class Facet
,
> current_object.__class__.__name__, inspect.getfile(obj.__class__), id(obj),
> id(current_object), attr, hasattr(current_object, attr)))
>
>
> We may be approaching a point in this where I won't be able to diagnose
> much else over e-mail, and am basical
Hi Stephen,
I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index - unfortunately
the same problem.
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard &l
;ve installed that on our test system and re-run the index -
> unfortunately the same problem.
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>
> On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst'
No probs - where do we go from here?
Thanks
Rob
On Thursday, 12 October 2017 19:58:13 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Ok, I just wanted to rule out an easy solution.
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:47 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com
here this goes.
>
> Change the code to:
>
> import inspect
> has_attr = hasattr(current_object, attr)
> print '%r (%s): %s' % (current_object.__class__, id(current_object),
> has_attr)
> if not has_attr:
> raise SearchFieldError("The
re
>> return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 92, in
>> prepare
>> raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s.%s at %s -- %s:%s)
>> does n
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
>
#x27; does not
have a model_attr 'username'.
Thanks
Rob
On Monday, 16 October 2017 22:46:09 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Actually, this should function as a workaround for now. You can do this in
> that same Haystack file. Change the entirety
gt;
>> No probs, not always easy to get to the bottom of these things!
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2017, at 19:15, Christian Hammond > > wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. Okay, yeah, you'd need to r
ut 5 lines of your modification?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 18:01 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> It crashes straight away with this error...
>>
>
Note the
> standalone 'hasattr' call on the line preceding the if statement. The
> workaround is to call that in a standalone way to prime a cache and avoid
> the error.
>
> Christian
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:17 AM, 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
not ..." (i.e. not is missing).
>
> // Erik
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2017 12:44, "'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard" <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Ah yes sorry missed that...I have added it in but I get the same error
>
ame'.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:02:54 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> That doesn't include the code I mentioned in my previous e-mail. Note
&g
Hi,
We are running RB 2.5.16 and have noticed some changes in the search
functionality from previous versions.
What is the intended behaviour of the search?
Should the Search API and/or the "quick search" include review requests
marked as submitted?
If not, when was this changed and is there a
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Would it be possible to let me know when this change (back) has been made
please? Or should I keep an eye out for the change on future releases?
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 09:41:24 UTC, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are running RB 2
Ok great, thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 20:49, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> The fix will be included in 2.5.17 and 3.0.1. I expect we’ll get 2.5.17 out
> in about a week.
>
> Christian
>
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:31 'Rob Ba
44 matches
Mail list logo
