Reviewboard showing only 20 branches of gitlab repository

[kort...@email.cz]

Hello,

I managed to connect to my Gitlab repository and when I am creating new review I see the repository allright, I even see the branches and commits on them, but the problem is I don't see all the branches.
I only see exactly 20 of them. I am not sure if they are the newest ones or by which key they are selected. But I need all of the branches. The worst problem is I don't see master.
Is it some known issue? Is there some solution? I am not an experienced Git user, so maybe it might be just something trivial... I tested in several browsers, everywhere the same behavior.

Gitlab version seems: GitLab Community Edition 12.10.1

Reviewboard version: 3.0.12

Thanks or any help and sorry if it is a noob question...

[Christian Hammond]

Hi,

Hrm, I was sure we fixed this. At one point, the GitLab API didn't give us pagination information, but once it did we added support in places. It looks like branches never got that support.

I'll look into it.

However, I will strongly encourage you to use RBTools for posting changes for review, rather than manually selecting commits in the New Review Request page. It will give you a lot more flexibility in how you manage your commits locally and represent them on Review Board, and will avoid having to push to any centralized place prior to review (making it easier to amend your commits based on review feedback, rebase them prior to landing, etc.).

Christian

--
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...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/307d8c7a-5b4b-4451-bba5-2d8081d11f76%40googlegroups.com.

--

Christian Hammond

President/CEO of Beanbag

Makers of Review Board

[kort...@email.cz]

Hi Christian,

We are trying to make the RBTools work in the meantime, but is there any progress in "looking into it" ? :-)

If you say you fixed it, couldn't be the problem, that we use version 3.0.12? We installed the RB on windows using the Bitnami installer and it has already version 3.0.17 as it seems. Would an update help?

Thanks for help

Jirka

Dne čtvrtek 7. května 2020 1:33:54 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

Hi,

Hrm, I was sure we fixed this. At one point, the GitLab API didn't give us pagination information, but once it did we added support in places. It looks like branches never got that support.

I'll look into it.

However, I will strongly encourage you to use RBTools for posting changes for review, rather than manually selecting commits in the New Review Request page. It will give you a lot more flexibility in how you manage your commits locally and represent them on Review Board, and will avoid having to push to any centralized place prior to review (making it easier to amend your commits based on review feedback, rebase them prior to landing, etc.).

Christian

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:07 AM kort...@email.cz <kort...@email.cz> wrote:

Hello,

I managed to connect to my Gitlab repository and when I am creating new review I see the repository allright, I even see the branches and commits on them, but the problem is I don't see all the branches.
I only see exactly 20 of them. I am not sure if they are the newest ones or by which key they are selected. But I need all of the branches. The worst problem is I don't see master.
Is it some known issue? Is there some solution? I am not an experienced Git user, so maybe it might be just something trivial... I tested in several browsers, everywhere the same behavior.

Gitlab version seems: GitLab Community Edition 12.10.1

Reviewboard version: 3.0.12

Thanks or any help and sorry if it is a noob question...

--
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 revie...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/307d8c7a-5b4b-4451-bba5-2d8081d11f76%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Hi again,

There is another problem... I tried to create a review request from the branches and commits I see and I get

"HTTP 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR"

What is wrong? Any idea? Isn't the problem, that our reviewboard is running on https and port number 444?

Log for this error:

ERROR

- root - Unable to update new review request from commit ID 6a60ac36244fb185817055e6e9c404106b103260 on repository ID=2: HTTP Error 404: Not Found Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\reviews\managers.py", line 165, in create draft.update_from_commit_id(commit_id) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\reviews\models\review_request_draft.py", line 419, in update_from_commit_id return self.update_from_committed_change(commit_id) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\reviews\models\review_request_draft.py", line 492, in update_from_committed_change commit = self.repository.get_change(commit_id) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\scmtools\models.py", line 509, in get_change return hosting_service.get_change(self, revision) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\hostingsvcs\gitlab.py", line 641, in get_change headers={'Accept': 'text/plain'}) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\hostingsvcs\service.py", line 188, in http_get return self.http_request(url, headers=headers, method='GET', **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\hostingsvcs\service.py", line 319, in http_request response = urlopen(request, context=context) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 154, in urlopen return opener.open(url, data, timeout) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 435, in open response = meth(req, response) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 548, in http_response 'http', request, response, code, msg, hdrs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 467, in error result = self._call_chain(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 407, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 654, in http_error_302 return self.parent.open(new, timeout=req.timeout) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 435, in open response = meth(req, response) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 548, in http_response 'http', request, response, code, msg, hdrs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 473, in error return self._call_chain(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 407, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 556, in http_error_default raise HTTPError(req.get_full_url(), code, msg, hdrs, fp) HTTPError: HTTP Error 404: Not Found

and

	ERROR	None - jiri.kortanek - /api/review-requests/ - djblets.log.middleware - Exception thrown for user jiri.kortanek at https://myserver.ad001.mycompany.net:444/api/review-requests/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\django\django\core\handlers\base.py", line 112, in get_response response = wrapped_callback(request, *callback_args, **callback_kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\django\django\views\decorators\cache.py", line 52, in _wrapped_view_func response = view_func(request, *args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\django\django\views\decorators\vary.py", line 19, in inner_func response = func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\resources\base.py", line 244, in __call__ request, method, view, api_format=api_format, *args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\webapi\base.py", line 338, in call_method_view request, method, view, *args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\resources\mixins\api_tokens.py", line 66, in call_method_view request, method, view, *args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\resources\mixins\oauth2_tokens.py", line 102, in call_method_view request, method, view, *args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\resources\base.py", line 369, in call_method_view return view(request, *args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\resources\base.py", line 470, in post return self.create(*args, **kwargs) File "build/bdist.macosx-10.11-x86_64/egg/rbpowerpack/extension/hooks.py", line 83, in _api_create_review_request File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\decorators.py", line 125, in _call return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\webapi\decorators.py", line 169, in _check return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\decorators.py", line 125, in _call return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\decorators.py", line 146, in _checklogin return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\decorators.py", line 125, in _call return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\decorators.py", line 125, in _call return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\site-packages\djblets\webapi\decorators.py", line 311, in _validate return view_func(*args, **new_kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\webapi\resources\review_request.py", line 737, in create create_from_commit_id=create_from_commit_id) File "build/bdist.macosx-10.11-x86_64/egg/rbpowerpack/extension/hooks.py", line 79, in _create_review_request File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\reviews\managers.py", line 165, in create draft.update_from_commit_id(commit_id) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\reviews\models\review_request_draft.py", line 419, in update_from_commit_id return self.update_from_committed_change(commit_id) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\reviews\models\review_request_draft.py", line 492, in update_from_committed_change commit = self.repository.get_change(commit_id) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\scmtools\models.py", line 509, in get_change return hosting_service.get_change(self, revision) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\hostingsvcs\gitlab.py", line 641, in get_change headers={'Accept': 'text/plain'}) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\hostingsvcs\service.py", line 188, in http_get return self.http_request(url, headers=headers, method='GET', **kwargs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\apps\reviewboardpowerpack\htdocs\Lib\site-packages\ReviewBoard-3.0.12-py2.7.egg\reviewboard\hostingsvcs\service.py", line 319, in http_request response = urlopen(request, context=context) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 154, in urlopen return opener.open(url, data, timeout) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 435, in open response = meth(req, response) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 548, in http_response 'http', request, response, code, msg, hdrs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 467, in error result = self._call_chain(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 407, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 654, in http_error_302 return self.parent.open(new, timeout=req.timeout) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 435, in open response = meth(req, response) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 548, in http_response 'http', request, response, code, msg, hdrs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 467, in error result = self._call_chain(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 407, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 654, in http_error_302 return self.parent.open(new, timeout=req.timeout) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 435, in open response = meth(req, response) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 548, in http_response 'http', request, response, code, msg, hdrs) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 473, in error return self._call_chain(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 407, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "C:\App\Bitnami\reviewboardpowerpack-3.0.12-1\python\lib\urllib2.py", line 556, in http_error_default raise HTTPError(req.get_full_url(), code, msg, hdrs, fp) HTTPError: HTTP Error 404: Not Found

Thanks

Jirka

Dne pátek 15. května 2020 12:39:17 UTC+2 kort...@email.cz napsal(a):

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Jirka,

We've fixed the pagination issue and will have the fix in 3.0.18.

I don't know what's going on in that backtrace, but 3.0.12 is pretty old now, so it may have been a bug in an older release. Or some change in their API we're not aware of, or something else getting in the way of access. I unfortunately don't have enough information to go off of from the backtrace. Just that the API for fetching a change is returning a HTTP 404.

I'd try upgrading and also make sure there aren't any restrictions on the user configured in Review Board to authenticate with GitLab.

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/be0a286d-952e-4f75-99bb-6782e718623c%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Hi Christian,

Thanks for the ideas, my admin managed to update reviewboard to 3.0.17, but no luck.
I found out I am missing the SSH settings, so I created a new one and added the public part to our gitlab repository, but that was not it either...

I am running out of ideas... is there some information I can give you so you can help me?

For some reason we were not able to make the RBTools run either.

I would hate to have to look for another tool:(

Dne pondělí 18. května 2020 5:19:48 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/be0a286d-952e-4f75-99bb-6782e718623c%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Update:

When we tested it with a "public" repository on our gitlab server, it works. But our repositories needs to be private.

So it seems the problem is somewhere in the recognition of the reviewboard as a valid user, even though I filled in all the tokens and keys and user credentials...

Rings any bells?

Dne pondělí 18. května 2020 16:47:21 UTC+2 kort...@email.cz napsal(a):

[Christian Hammond]

It doesn't ring any bells. It does sound like a credential/repository access issue, though. I suspect something is preventing that user from accessing changes on that repository in GitLab's settings. I know other companies are using private repositories on GitLab with Review Board without issue.

What's the problem you're hitting with RBTools?

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/ba6bc547-24e2-4aa7-b378-5dd29c069ed9%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Hi Christian,

Thanks, I have contacted our GitLab support and hopefully it will have a good ending.

The colleague testing the RBTools was using this guide https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/1.0/workflows/git/#rbtools-workflow-git

But ended with

CRITICAL: [Error 267] The directory name is invalid

when tried using rbt post

I tried to google around for it, but got nothing usefull...

Dne úterý 19. května 2020 2:21:05 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/ba6bc547-24e2-4aa7-b378-5dd29c069ed9%40googlegroups.com.

[Christian Hammond]

That error doesn’t make much sense to me. It sounds like it’s being run from a directory that was then deleted, or there’s some special characters or something that something is having trouble with. 

I’d like to see more about how you’re using RBTools. Can you go into detail on your setup, how you’re invoking it?

I’d also like to see the debug output from the invocation that leads to that error. You can pass --debug as the first parameter to `rbt post`.

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/653fefda-9df3-431a-b3fc-2e95a8b7df0c%40googlegroups.com.

--

[Martin Růžek]

Hi,

I'm that person trying to use it on real repository.

I hit this error even during setup-repo command. I passed --debug parameter and output looks like this:

D:\git_repository>rbt setup-repo --debug

>>> RBTools 1.0.3

>>> Python 2.7.17 (v2.7.17:c2f86d86e6, Oct 19 2019, 20:49:36) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)]

>>> Running on Windows-10-10.0.17134

>>> Home = C:\Users\z003fbrn\AppData\Roaming

>>> Current directory = d:\Ruzek\LEIA\Emitter\sitrans-tdl-emitter

>>> Command line: rbt setup-repo --debug

Enter the Review Board server URL: https://czprga99033srv.ad001.siemens.net:444/

>>> Running: tf vc help

>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...

>>> Unable to execute "svn help": skipping SVN

>>> Checking for a Git repository...

>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir

>>> Running: git config core.bare

>>> Running: git rev-parse --show-toplevel

>>> Running: git symbolic-ref -q HEAD

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\bin\..\Python27\Scripts\rbt-script.py", line 11, in <module>

    load_entry_point('RBTools==1.0.3', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\main.py", line 120, in main

    command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\__init__.py", line 725, in run_from_argv

    exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\setup_repo.py", line 105, in main

    repository_info, tool = self.initialize_scm_tool()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\__init__.py", line 754, in initialize_scm_tool

    client_name=client_name)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\__init__.py", line 803, in scan_usable_client

    repository_info = tool.get_repository_info()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\git.py", line 284, in get_repository_info

    ignore_errors=True).strip()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\git.py", line 1261, in _execute

    return execute(cmdline, cwd=self._git_toplevel, *args, **kwargs)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\utils\process.py", line 155, in execute

    **popen_encoding_args)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\subprocess.py", line 394, in __init__

    errread, errwrite)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\subprocess.py", line 644, in _execute_child

    startupinfo)

WindowsError: [Error 267] The directory name is invalid

If I try post command, report looks like this:

d:\git_repository>rbt post --debug

>>> RBTools 1.0.3

>>> Python 2.7.17 (v2.7.17:c2f86d86e6, Oct 19 2019, 20:49:36) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)]

>>> Running on Windows-10-10.0.17134

>>> Home = C:\Users\z003fbrn\AppData\Roaming

>>> Current directory = d:\Ruzek\LEIA\Emitter\sitrans-tdl-emitter

>>> Command line: rbt post --debug

>>> Running: tf vc help

>>> Checking for a Subversion repository...

>>> Unable to execute "svn help": skipping SVN

>>> Checking for a Git repository...

>>> Running: git rev-parse --git-dir

>>> Running: git config core.bare

>>> Running: git rev-parse --show-toplevel

>>> Running: git symbolic-ref -q HEAD

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\bin\..\Python27\Scripts\rbt-script.py", line 11, in <module>

    load_entry_point('RBTools==1.0.3', 'console_scripts', 'rbt')()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\main.py", line 120, in main

    command.run_from_argv([RB_MAIN, command_name] + args)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\__init__.py", line 725, in run_from_argv

    exit_code = self.main(*args) or 0

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\post.py", line 756, in main

    client_name=self.options.repository_type)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\__init__.py", line 754, in initialize_scm_tool

    client_name=client_name)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\__init__.py", line 803, in scan_usable_client

    repository_info = tool.get_repository_info()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\git.py", line 284, in get_repository_info

    ignore_errors=True).strip()

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\clients\git.py", line 1261, in _execute

    return execute(cmdline, cwd=self._git_toplevel, *args, **kwargs)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-1.0.3-py2.7.egg\rbtools\utils\process.py", line 155, in execute

    **popen_encoding_args)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\subprocess.py", line 394, in __init__

    errread, errwrite)

  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\subprocess.py", line 644, in _execute_child

    startupinfo)

WindowsError: [Error 267] The directory name is invalid

Martin

Dne pátek 22. května 2020 11:58:58 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/653fefda-9df3-431a-b3fc-2e95a8b7df0c%40googlegroups.com.

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Martin,

The error is coming from Git, it seems. Can you run this command from that directory and see what it says:

    git symbolic-ref -q HEAD

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/51322cc0-077a-433e-bfd3-f4d22a39cf37%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Hi Christian,

Unfortunately I am still struggling.

The gitlab support directed me to check this: https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/1.5/admin/management/repositories/#determining-repository-information
This sounded like exactly my problem, for I see the branches, but cannot access a single file. I then realized that is nonsense, because if that would be the problem, then it wouldn't work even for the public repository (I tested it myself, and really when I switch a repository to public, it magically starts to work).

But it gave me the idea to try to add the repository as "custom repository" and try to fill in the "Raw file URL mask" - I tried it and encountered another error :-(

Environment can only contain strings

I found by google, that this was a discussed error at around 2015, but no solution was presented. Is it some bug that returned? Can I do something with it?

I tried to explore some more in the Gitlab and Reviewboard settings - tried something called deploy token and deploy keys, but nothing seems to work.

Also I found I can add applications to my Gitlab account, but I need something called "Redirect URI" but I have no idea where to get it for Reviewboard... I tried to put there my reviewboard server address, but that don't work either.

What I found out is that when I try to create the review, the Gitlab do not even register any movement on my account. So I really believe the problem is somewhere in the API token and logging and recognizing the user. Couldn't a problem be, that we use two-factor authentication and a Siemens entitlement for logging into the Gitlab repository? The API token should be able to pierce that though, shouldn't it?

I am getting frustrated by this to be honest, for it seems we will have to try out some another tool, which is exactly what I wanted to avoid, for we already approved that Reviewboard is suitable for our SIL needs.

About the RBTools problem - Martin had some computer breakdown and cannot continue with the experiments at the moment. He will continue as soon as he is able.

Thanks for any further help, I am currently running out of ideas.

Dne pátek 22. května 2020 23:00:15 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/51322cc0-077a-433e-bfd3-f4d22a39cf37%40googlegroups.com.

[Christian Hammond]

There’s two things in this thread that I think are getting jumbled together. There’s the RBTools issue, and the GitLab configuration. They’re independent, and I think it’s best to focus on one per thread.

For GitLab, it sounds like there’s two issues:

1) The branch limit. This will be fixed in the next release. That release is delayed as my primary computer is currently awaiting its position in a queue at Apple for repairs, and I’m in lockdown, making this a bit more difficult to deal with than normal...

2) Access control issues with that repository, which seems to be the more urgent issue.

You mentioned the 1.5 docs, and tried solutions from it, but much has changed since 1.5. Nothing from there will be helpful, and there’s no way for a non-GitLab Git repository entry to talk to GitLab. You won’t want to go down that path any further. It’s a hard requirement to use the GitLab hosting type to talk to a GitLab repository.

It does still seem to me to be an issue with the accessing user not having permissions to access commit info on the repository in question. What can you tell me about that user?

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/5c23cf64-b3e3-4ad8-9b21-abf2a60abb38%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Yes, the RBTools seems completely different problem (and we might solve it yet, we found what we did wrong, need some more testing). We will open different thread if needed.

The branch limit is also not an issue anymore, we changed the structure, so now we can reach the branches we need, and as you said - will be solved in next release.

But the problem with the access is still an isssue. I have tried with several users, included the owner of the repository. Every one has the same issue.

Every user I tested is able to make a clone of the repository, so they definetly should have access.

If I check in GitLab, it does not even register usage of the API token.

One of my colleagues said he had also problem with access to the repository from another tool (Jenkins). He found out the problem is with the HTTPS access. He managed to successfully access the repository with SSH. This is why I wanted to try the general Git repository entry, because there is possibilitiy to set an SSH entry there.

I am also communicating with our GitLab support, but they are not much helpfull yet... I have some new name to contact, so hopefully he will have some insight.

Thank you for still keeping this thread active, I already spent too much time on this and the management is starting to have questions, so if I do not solve it soon, I will have to go for another review tool...

Dne pondělí 8. června 2020 0:03:44 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/5c23cf64-b3e3-4ad8-9b21-abf2a60abb38%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

I just found:
"cloning per https is blocked from the internet, if you want to clone from internet you need to use ssh"
That seems like the real problem...
sooo... How can I persuade Reviewboard to communicate with GitLab over SSH?

Dne úterý 16. června 2020 15:05:43 UTC+2 kort...@email.cz napsal(a):

	ERROR

py", line 169, in _check return view_func(*args, **kwargs) File &qu

[Christian Hammond]

We don't talk directly to the repository, or clone it, so that error probably isn't related to us?

We communicate solely with the GitLab API, and we're using the standard GitLab API calls. We know that the authentication is working via those calls, because you'd get an error much earlier. If it's failing to fetch the commits, that's something that other tools are going to hit as well. It's GitLab blocking something when accessing that URL.

Perhaps you can try making equivalent calls from the command line. We're calling the /api/v4/projects/<repository_id>/repository/commits/ API, with a "PRIVATE-TOKEN: ...." header. It appears Review Board is getting a 404 when that happens. An API call made by, say, `curl`, or Postman should see the same behavior with the same credentials.

The private token we use is the one provided when authorizing against the repository in the repository form (click Edit Credentials to change this token).

Christian

--

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...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/a3aef212-6852-4925-8404-62dc8cd816ddo%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

I finally got to someone competent on the GitLab side, so maybe we will get somewhere... His first idea is that the credentials management is somehow incompatible between review board and our GitLab. He is investigating now.

Meanwhile we succeeded in using the RBTools to some extent. We don't have a review yet, but it seems the colleague was able to do a fetch operation successfully:
"

/r/41/diff/1/fragment/20/ - root - Fetching file 'Project/Emitter_Unit/source/application/Communication/TimeSynchronization/CServerUDP.cpp' rf26817a5eeeef5799a477b0d858b135781470b41 (base commit ID 9ba489121bb89c93900020b3838cb50f232df3ed) from GIT Leia - emitter took 0.343000 seconds
"
The error before was caused by him using wrong Review Board login user name :-) The error message was so vague though, that we found out by accident just recently. We will try to work with it further, but we would still rather have the browser form working...

Dne středa 17. června 2020 4:33:24 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to revie...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/a3aef212-6852-4925-8404-62dc8cd816ddo%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

Is it possible to see in Review Board dump of all executed API commands?

Dne středa 17. června 2020 12:45:13 UTC+2 kort...@email.cz napsal(a):

[Christian Hammond]

All the GitLab API commands? No, we don't log that I'm afraid. What do you want to see out of it?

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/db9f55d7-a009-4562-abbc-a833d4fd3e26o%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

The GitLab support would like to see which commands are sent from your side, so they can identify what is wrong.

Dne sobota 20. června 2020 5:13:40 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/db9f55d7-a009-4562-abbc-a833d4fd3e26o%40googlegroups.com.

[Christian Hammond]

Authorization is performed by setting a PRIVATE-TOKEN: <AUTH_TOKEN> header with the token you provide for the account (which must have all necessary permissions for the API).

When listing the commits, we send:

    GET /api/v4/repository/commits?per_page=21&ref_name=master

(Replace "master" with whatever branch you've selected.)

When fetching an individual commit (after clicking a commit to post), we may or may not send the following, depending on prior cached information:

    GET /api/v4/repository/commits/<SHA>

We then fetch the repository information, based on your configuration:

    GET /api/v4/projects/<repository_id>

(The repository ID is cached permanently in your Review Board repository entry's extra_data field under "gitlab_project_id" — if that's incorrect for any reason, you'll hit issues. If that's missing from extra_data, it will be refetched/cached based on the configured repository owner and name.)

From that payload, we pull out the "path_with_namespace" parameter and then perform:

    GET <path_with_namespace>/commit/<SHA>.diff?private_token=<AUTH_TOKEN>

It's this call that's failing. I noticed we're using ?private_token= query parameter here instead of the HTTP header. GitLab API docs claim this is still valid for the API, but maybe it's not working here? We have other GitLab customers who are using Review Board, but most people use RBTools, which doesn't use this request. So there could be something there.

Or the auth token isn't able to access this resource. I should note we've had issues in the past where a previously-accessible resource has become unavailable. Perhaps that's happened.

Now, when we wrote this support, GitLab did not have an API available to access the raw diff contents, so we had to go this route. I don't think this is the right move anymore, and an API has since been added. We'll work to move onto the new diff API. Perhaps this will solve the problem.

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/65dec50e-7d64-42bf-af88-c83b0b7d59b6o%40googlegroups.com.

[Christian Hammond]

Well, I was hoping to get this for you for the upcoming release, but it won't be possible. The GitLab Commit Diff API is busted. It doesn't return a valid diff.

What the API does provide is the modified contents of each file, the payload portion of a diff, but without all of the identifying information. That is, a Git diff must have:

    diff --git a/filename b/filename

    index blobsha...blobsha filemode

    --- a/filename

    +++ b/filename

prior to any of the modified lines and their headers. Their API does not provide this.

The API does provide metadata on the filenames and file mode, but it doesn't provide the blob SHAs (not even short ones — though a long one is absolutely required), which are needed in order to actually fetch file contents.

You might want to pass this along to the GitLab contact there. Without either a full, valid Git diff, or all the information needed to reconstruct the header, we cannot use that API.

I've also found bug reports stating that their Diff API truncates long files, which will be a deal-breaker. Here's one ignored bug on the issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/57702

And yes, it does seem that a personal access token can no longer get the diff we accessed before. This hasn't come up before because most people use RBTools. That'll have to be the recommendation here for now. We'll have to turn off posting commits from the Review Board UI in the next release until GitLab introduces a usable, stable API for this.

Christian

[Christian Hammond]

And I wondered why I was feeling Deja Vu over this. I filed a bug about exactly this a year ago:

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/56532

Feel free to send that to the support agent handling your case. We can't do a thing until they address this issue (and some Google searches show others are frustrated by it as well).

Christian

[kort...@email.cz]

This finally sounds like we are getting somewhere :-) Thank you very much for the investigation.

First reaction from the Gitlab side is:
"

Well, it seems that they are using API token for non-API urls. That's not allowed (since one ot the many security updates). Therefore it can work only with public projects which don't protect these paths at all...

Not sure how they want to solve it other than clone the repository instead of using gitlab web URLs...

"

I asked them if that means that the behavior you described it is not a bug, but a feature... Waiting for their answer...

Dne úterý 23. června 2020 7:49:49 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/65dec50e-7d64-42bf-af88-c83b0b7d59b6o%40googlegroups.com.

--

Christian Hammond

President/CEO of Beanbag

Makers of Review Board

--

Christian Hammond

President/CEO of Beanbag

Makers of Review Board

[Christian Hammond]

Yeah, it wasn't until I dug into this again (and actually wrote 95% of a patch for the Diff API) that I realized I had done all this investigation (and patch writing) already.

It's not a bug on their end. It's an intentional change. However, it's a change that didn't have an equivalent for those that needed diffs from a commit.

Here's the ticket in question for the change in behavior: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/50319

They were addressing a security issue, working to prevent an API token from accessing data that shouldn't have been available. In the ticket, they discuss the fact that there are many useful sets of data on GitLab that do not have an API equivalent, and discussed whitelisting. Diffs, unfortunately, were never whitelisted.

If the repository is public, we can still fetch the diff. It only fails for private repositories.

Sometime around then (I don't know the timeframe), they introduced the API for getting a commit's diff, but it didn't seem designed so much as thrown together. It doesn't produce anything resembling a usable diff for anything but the simplest of tools. It truncates diffs (this may have changed, but it's the most recent information I could find). It's inefficient (it serializes as JSON). And it forces UTF-8 encoding (since it was serialized as JSON) which will result in patching issues for many codebases (we've been down this road before).

So basically, in order for us to support posting a commit through the New Review Request page for GitLab, we need one of the following, in order of preference:

1. A formal API for fetching the raw and full byte-level contents of a diff for a commit, unmodified. Ideally not broken up into any files or requiring pagination. Just the full thing you'd normally get from a `git diff --full-index` command.

2. Whitelisting of the URL we're accessing for fetching the diff.

3. Fixing the current Commit Diff API to include a full Git diff header (important: with long SHAs, not short SHAs, or we're back to square one) and to not truncate or modify any diff contents.

What we're doing right now is preparing a change for 3.0.18 that will at least make this situation less confusing. If we detect the circumstances you're hitting, we display an error message explaining the situation, and linking to a knowledge base article on this. Best we can do until there's support in GitLab for this.

Christian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/fe478dc7-2068-4fa1-b83b-9b1432516bc5o%40googlegroups.com.

[kort...@email.cz]

I think we are on the end of the road. The last statement from GitLab guys:
"

We're not planning to work on this.

What about the possibility #4 - fetch the git repository?

"

I don't suppose possibility #4 will work for you. So there goes using a convenient way of code review :-/

There is still the RBTools left. Unfortunately the guy who should have tested it just went for paternal leave. I will try to find some time and test it myself.

In any case, thanks for you patient support and have a nice day:-)

Jiri Kortanek

Unit tester/Team manager
Siemens, s.r.o.

Siemens Advanta Development

Dne úterý 23. června 2020 12:48:57 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

The colleague testing the RBTools was using this guide https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/1.0/workflows/git/#rbtools-workflow-git</a

[kort...@email.cz]

Maybe one more thing - The adding of custom repository shows the "Environment can only contain strings" error. I know this is not a way that will help me, but still it seems like a bug worth solving to me...

Dne středa 24. června 2020 10:40:53 UTC+2 kort...@email.cz napsal(a):

I think we are on the end of the road. The last statement from GitLab guys:
"

We're not planning to work on this.

What about the possibility #4 - fetch the git repository?

"

I don't suppose possibility #4 will work for you. So there goes using a convenient way of code review :-/

There is still the RBTools left. Unfortunately the guy who should have tested it just went for paternal leave. I will try to find some time and test it myself.

In any case, thanks for you patient support and have a nice day:-)

Jiri Kortanek

Unit tester/Team manager
Siemens, s.r.o.

Siemens Advanta Development

Dne úterý 23. června 2020 12:48:57 UTC+2 Christian Hammond napsal(a):

Yeah, it wasn't until I dug into this again (and actually wrote 95% of a patch for the Diff API) that I realized I had done all this investigation (and patch writing) already.

It's not a bug on their end. It's an intentional change. However, it's a change that didn't have an equivalent for those that needed diffs from a commit.

Here's the ticket in question for the change in behavior: <a href="https://gitlab.com/gitlab-or

[Christian Hammond]

That's a shame... Unfortunately, that's been consistent with all of our years of experience integrating with GitLab's services. Things get implemented in a broken or semi-useless state, and then ignored until they're removed or made backward-incompatible suddenly one day. The reason for the initial issue mentioned in the subject (the limit of 100 branches) was due to their API not supporting pagination for many years (or, when they did, it was often buggy). These API limitations in GitLab are going to affect any tool that needs to access a diff from it.

A custom repository won't work. People are often surprised to hear this, but Git has no suitable remote API. Their protocol covers very little behind what's needed for a push/pull. Review Board has to talk to the API of any Git-providing service, and that API has to provide a base set of functionality.

RBTools is really just the way to go. It's what most Review Board users use anyway, and is far more useful than browsing for commits will ever be, since you can amend/add commits locally and keep updating your review request, something you can't do if you're first pushing to a central repository.

Christian

--

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...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/dc74c041-a23b-4e13-8c66-93fc452b8b00o%40googlegroups.com.