abhiravk Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Hi, PlasitcSCM review system is pretty basic and most of the time it does not suit the purpose(atleast for me) . - It doesn't work on xlink - I wanted to submit the difference between 2 cs for review (no idea how to do it). Because of the above shortcomings I wanted to integrate it with 'ReviewBoard' but it doesn't work. After installing reviewboard and plastic plugin, when I select 'PlasticSCM' as repository, it just keep trying to do something (loading animation does't end) but never completes. Is it problem with reviewboard or plastic plugin? Regards, Abhirav Kushwaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted July 10, 2013 Report Share Posted July 10, 2013 Hi, Can you enable ReviewBoard log: Administration --> System information --> LogProfiling. I´ve tried to reproduce the issue with last ReviewBoard version, and it seems there is an issue with the "get_repositories" operation. Can you confirm if it´s the same issue? We will try to fix it ASAP. Regards, Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhiravk Posted July 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2013 I am also getting the same error - 2013-07-11 10:16:02,919 - DEBUG - - Plastic: get_repositories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted July 11, 2013 Report Share Posted July 11, 2013 Thanks, we will try to fix it ASAP. Regards, Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhiravk Posted July 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Hi, Is this fix big? Is it going to take time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Hi, It´s difficult to say a specific date, but the bug has been reported, and hopefully it will be fixed in the next weeks. Regards, Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhiravk Posted August 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2013 Hi Carlos, Any update on this issue? On the other note, I was trying the development build(1.8dev) of ReviewBoard. This issue doesn't seem to be there. However there are other issues on the development build e.g. When I try to create a review from the WebUI, it fails with the following error, 2013-08-01 05:56:36,013 - ERROR - None - abhiravk - /r/new/ - Internal Server Error: /r/new/ Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/abhiravk/workspace/rb-dev-env/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg/django/core/handlers/base.py", line 111, in get_response response = callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs) File "/home/abhiravk/workspace/rb-dev-env/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/Djblets-0.7.16-py2.7.egg/djblets/auth/util.py", line 47, in _checklogin return view_func(request, *args, **kwargs) File "/home/abhiravk/workspace/reviewboard/reviewboard/reviews/views.py", line 249, in new_review_request local_site=local_site) File "/home/abhiravk/workspace/reviewboard/reviewboard/reviews/forms.py", line 220, in create changenum, local_site) File "/home/abhiravk/workspace/reviewboard/reviewboard/reviews/managers.py", line 130, in create review_request.update_from_commit_id(commit_id) File "/home/abhiravk/workspace/reviewboard/reviewboard/reviews/models.py", line 411, in update_from_commit_id raise NotImplementedError() NotImplementedError When I try to create a review using the 'post-review' command the following error is seen, Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/bin/post-review", line 9, in <module> load_entry_point('RBTools==0.5.1.dev', 'console_scripts', 'post-review')() File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.5.1.dev-py2.7.egg/rbtools/postreview.py", line 1332, in main diff, parent_diff = tool.diff(args) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.5.1.dev-py2.7.egg/rbtools/clients/plastic.py", line 73, in diff return self.branch_diff(args), None File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/RBTools-0.5.1.dev-py2.7.egg/rbtools/clients/plastic.py", line 92, in branch_diff if not self._options.branch: AttributeError: 'PlasticClient' object has no attribute '_options' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted August 2, 2013 Report Share Posted August 2, 2013 Hi, The issue was reported but the fix hasn´t been performed yet. We will try to adapt the plugin to the last ReviewBoard version. I will update this post when the fix is released. Regards, Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Hi, We have performed a few tests using Review Board 1.7 integration. Could you try using the 1.7 version? Please, review the next steps: Installing review board: $ su root $ wget https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/raw/bootstrap/ez_setup.py -O - | python install gmplib: http://petio.org/tools/gmp.html $ yum install python_crypto $ yum install python-imaging $ easy_install -f http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.7/ -U ReviewBoard == Alternative method == using the development installation http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/codebase/dev/getting-started/ == Configuration == 1. Install and configure plastic client on the machine you install ReviewBoard. 2. Make sure that the cm is on the path 3. Go to the ReviewBoardUI, enter as admin, and go to profile -> admin -> repositories -> add new repository Create a new one: 4. Go to the reviewboard machine. Make sure that you have installed the rbtoos. 5. Create a new review: $ rbt post --debug --server=http://localhost:8080 --repository=PLASTIC_WEB --repository-type=plastic --summary="Adapt OAuth registration to downloads flow" 767 Review request #18 posted.http://localhost:8080/r/18/ Then, the review is created: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsg Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Just wondering if this integration has progressed any. Is 1.7 the recommended version for use with Plastic? Are there any plans to update so that Review Board 2.0.(12) works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 HI @dsg, I´ve performed a test and it seems that integration is still working under Review Board 2.0. What´s the issue you are facing? Could you run a command simmilar to: rbt post --debug --server=http://localhost:8080 --repository=PLASTIC_WEB --repository-type=plastic --summary="Adapt OAuth registration to downloads flow" 767 Regards, Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsg Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Not experienced an issue, was looking for guidance/ confirmation about version to investigate. As V2.0 is working I'll go with it for my investigation Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misieq Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 Hi I have manager to set-up ReviewBoard (2.0.13) and PlasticSCM (5.4) together. It looks to be working (it's good ) but I have faced one problem (and it's bad). Are "subrepositories" supported by ReviewBoard PlasticSCM plugin? I have managed to successfully add standard repository to ReviewBoard but when I am trying to do the same with sub-repo (e.g. ProjectX/Tools) ReviewBoard is saying to not found such repo. Are there any plans to add such support? Best regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misieq Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 PS. Problematic are regexp in plastic plug-in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hi, I´m afraid the the subrepos and Xlinks are not supported yet. But we have a task to improve our code review system soon. You can also use our user voice sustem, to request your missing features: https://plasticscm.uservoice.com/forums/15467-general Regards, Carlos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.