{"push_id":549162619,"size":23,"distinct_size":12,"ref":"refs/heads/master","head":"19967a0c9320c0c2f7e00dc365dd8abf1916e205","before":"e633b8e937580411acf82dde73c2c7049d69137d","commits":[{"sha":"6d2a0b81ed1257c15dec9e1fa17e310bf9bdc2fc","author":{"email":"2314b2e3a4a1f7db165be2aafbf1efd78f28cc97@beanbaginc.com","name":"Christian Hammond"},"message":"Fix logic errors causing diffs to appear as empty files.\n\nReview Board 2.0 introduced support for showing entries in the diff\nviewer for newly-added empty files. It did this based on whether a file\nwas new and whether it has 0 non-equals chunks.\n\nThat logic should have been whether it has 0 chunks. That was a simple\ntemplate change to fix.\n\nHowever, it exposed a problem where a valid change could have 0 chunks,\nonce again triggering this problem. That was a result of checking the\nnormalized insert/delete counts, rather than the raw insert/delete\ncounts from the diff. That meant that if a change only had replaces, it\nwould also appear as empty.\n\nThis was particularly problematic in combination with a very old design\nflaw, where diffs that were based on a parent diff of a newly added file\ninherited the \"new\" state. If a series of files were introduced on a\nbranch and then commits later in the branch were put up for review, they\ncould easily show up as empty. Alternatively, if a file contained only\n'replace' changes, and was in the same real or bogus new state, it could\nalso hit this case.\n\nTesting Done:\nUnit tests pass.\n\nThe following scenarios were checked. Each showed the diff as an empty file\nbefore.\n\n# Scenario 1: New files, interdiffs without modifications\n\nCreated a new file and uploaded the diff. Then posted another diff of that\nfile without modifications.\n\nWhen viewing the interdiff between the two, the diff no longer showed up as\nan empty file.\n\nRepeated this with a diff containing a parent diff from a newly-added commit,\nwhich transferred the \"new\" status (from an old design flaw). This failed\nbefore, but worked after.\n\n# Scenario 2: New diffs, interdiffs with replace lines only\n\nRepeated the above scenario, but made changes to a single line between the\nrevisions, generating \"replace\" chunks. Before, this caused the diff to appear\nas empty. Now, it shows the replaced lines.\n\n# Scenario 3: Diff with new parent diff and replace lines only\n\nCreated a commit introducing a file. Changed a line in the file and posted it.\nTurned off showing extra whitespace and viewed it. Saw the empty file.\n\nBugs closed: 3601\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6765/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/6d2a0b81ed1257c15dec9e1fa17e310bf9bdc2fc"},{"sha":"4f11579f2e983c463399cc51d88eaa8d25486200","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Fix handling of 'start' parameter for markdown lists.\n\nIf a list starts at something other than '1', we'd fail, treating a Node.Attr\ninstance as if it were an int. This change fixes the types to actually fetch\nthe correct value.\n\nTesting done:\n- Set up a markdown list starting at '2' and saw that it no longer failed.\n- Ran unit tests.\n\nFixes bug 3715.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6761/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/4f11579f2e983c463399cc51d88eaa8d25486200"},{"sha":"5ebe24d4fdc047a313c417b068bfe35de317f058","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/5ebe24d4fdc047a313c417b068bfe35de317f058"},{"sha":"ad8ccf1d69edb1beba0688a35d3712d0ef2471ae","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Run post-commit SVN diffs through convert_to_unicode.\n\nWe were blindly interpreting the results of the lower-level SVN libraries' diff\ncommands as utf-8. This worked until now, but it failed for a certain\niso-8859-1 character. This change switches us to use our fancy\nconvert_to_unicode method, which will try utf-8, anything that's configured for\nthe repository, and iso-8859-1.\n\nTesting done:\nRan unit tests.\n\nFixes bug 3716.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6763/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/ad8ccf1d69edb1beba0688a35d3712d0ef2471ae"},{"sha":"3c4efd158d6c23302bdab911b4185482d15cffbd","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/3c4efd158d6c23302bdab911b4185482d15cffbd"},{"sha":"e692739b2018e315bcb5c80ca493114fe990a086","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Fix jshint warnings.\n\nTrivial changes to clean up some linter errors that have snuck in over the past\nfew months.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6768/","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/e692739b2018e315bcb5c80ca493114fe990a086"},{"sha":"daa5f139fb5d03025d7ce637caec8a0abee8c6e0","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Get rid of user names and timestamps in the review dialog.\n\nWith the new review dialog, I had initially put in labels mimicing the\nappearance of the review, including the user's full name and a timestamp. This\nwasn't particularly useful, because the user was always the person looking at\nit, and the timestamp just showed the current time.\n\nI've replaced these with simple text that just say \"Edit {header, comment,\nfooter}\".\n\nTesting done:\n- Opened the review dialog and saw the new text.\n- Ran jshint.\n- Ran js-tests.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6769/","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/daa5f139fb5d03025d7ce637caec8a0abee8c6e0"},{"sha":"e3dd6721be2ddb31e9c43f563f2915ff220d431e","author":{"email":"a651ff45af45cfca349a26afbf64cadd158bac04@gmail.com","name":"Nicolas Dély"},"message":"Fix KeyError when submitting a clearcase review request containing binary file changes\n\nBinary files have no origFile and newFile defined in their header. This fixes\nthe code to use .get() instead of subscript-style access.\n\nPS: It was originally reported by Piotr Zwara on github, I have not found any\nissue in reviewboard bugtracker.\nhttps://github.com/reviewboard/reviewboard/commit/2939338493658ce6424d1efc63e010e4b8290bb8#commitcomment-6777854\n\nTesting Done:\nCan upload successfully a clearcase review request containing binary file\nchanges against reviewboard server 2.0.6 + this fix\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6758/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/e3dd6721be2ddb31e9c43f563f2915ff220d431e"},{"sha":"b100c82e3cc768f0dda76f1156bc7ab3b2a2d9ef","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/b100c82e3cc768f0dda76f1156bc7ab3b2a2d9ef"},{"sha":"3383d814490e84a64a8bdb895e0d0eea1ba6d0be","author":{"email":"2314b2e3a4a1f7db165be2aafbf1efd78f28cc97@beanbaginc.com","name":"Christian Hammond"},"message":"Fix rendering change descriptions without raw insert/delete counts.\n\nWhen rendering a change entry for a diff, the code attempts to get the\ntotal raw insert/delete line counts across all FileDiffs. If there are\nno FileDiffs for some reason, then this would end up crashing.\n\nWe're now more careful to not assume these counts exist, and to use 0 as\nthe value in this case.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6778/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/3383d814490e84a64a8bdb895e0d0eea1ba6d0be"},{"sha":"cca8192d80edaa9a667bb53911b646890708f5ad","author":{"email":"f24004b1c4868ef97a8c5855106eceb03a083b71@ualberta.ca","name":"Jessica Yuen"},"message":"Added instructions for running subsets of tests in Getting Started guide\n\nInformation in the blog post at\nhttps://reviewboardstudents.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/running-subsets-of-review-board-tests/\nhas been added to the codebase Getting Started guide in the Running Unit Tests section. The\nguide explains how to run sebset of Review Board unit tests.\n\nTesting Done:\nRan 'make html' and checked the .html to make sure it links properly.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6770/","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/cca8192d80edaa9a667bb53911b646890708f5ad"},{"sha":"9a1466fd4ea096506e7ff91ca3f01984275ec25b","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Add a dummy review UI.\n\nThis change adds a new dummy review UI for file types that otherwise don't have\none. The purpose here is that if there's an attachment with multiple revisions,\nand one of those revisions doesn't have a review UI, it would be possible to\nget a 404 when sliding around through the revision slider.\n\nThe dummy UI just shows the revision header, selector, and caption/revision\nlabel. It doesn't have anything else, or any commenting functionality. It's\nhighly unlikely that this will ever actually be encountered, but it's here just\nin case.\n\nWhile doing this, I fixed a bug that slipped into the image review UI captions,\nand started combining some of the common parts of the Review UI headers.\n\nTesting done:\n- Verified that the dummy UI looked correct for both single and diff views.\n- Checked that the thumbnail did not link to the dummy review UI.\n- Ran python unit tests.\n- Ran js-tests.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6762/","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/9a1466fd4ea096506e7ff91ca3f01984275ec25b"},{"sha":"47bd1bfb004f5e4b35a93a57855af75ee5251541","author":{"email":"2983817e0cb3926c068db452e133228d9cefb57c@gmail.com","name":"Chester Li"},"message":"Fix misleading \"RBTools Setup\" instructions in the repository admin.\n\nIn the repository list in the Review Board admin site, we have an \"RBTools\nSetup\" link that pops up instructions for what to put in a .reviewboardrc file.\nThese instructions were misleading in cases like SVN where the user won't be\nchecking out the \"repository root\", but rather a subdirectory.\n\nThis change fixes the text to suggest users commit this file to the root of\ntheir working copy.\n\nTesting Done:\nChecked (using Chrome) to see the new string.\n\nBugs closed: 3595\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6788/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/47bd1bfb004f5e4b35a93a57855af75ee5251541"},{"sha":"6ecd0f658c6131577892458123a48a4fe4fd4b15","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/6ecd0f658c6131577892458123a48a4fe4fd4b15"},{"sha":"71731cb7fee626e0cc909eaec45918382668e491","author":{"email":"b0906e9a05416ead68966d9bb7be5b8acf2559e2@gmail.com","name":"Jason Tseng"},"message":"Fix location hash and scroll position when clicking on file links in the diff viewer.\n\nThis change does two things:\n- Adjusted \"DIFF_SCROLLDOWN_AMOUNT\" value to 15 from original 100, which\n  reduces the spaces between top of the element to the browser boundary after\n  jumping to the anchor, avoid leaving a large gap between\n- Sets location.hash with the anchor value at the time of scrolling, to replace\n  the part being stripped out by the Backbone router.\n\nTesting Done:\n- Unit tests pass.\n- Created open reviews with multiple changed files and tested clicking on file\n  links to confirm the url is displaying the correct hashtag and having no\n  extra spaces between the tagged element and top of the browser.\n- Opened a new page with the link including the hashtag to confirm the hashtag\n  remains in place, and the page is scrolled to the correct tagged element\n  location.\n\nBugs closed: 3363\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6782/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/71731cb7fee626e0cc909eaec45918382668e491"},{"sha":"9579209e3ea907aab6e0e980643d458e859a6841","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/9579209e3ea907aab6e0e980643d458e859a6841"},{"sha":"6e485ace9e6ef58a515d71aa9151ef70d4c35569","author":{"email":"7a245d6cb4c4e07b3363b8b901e66fd0d22500f1@mail.utoronto.ca","name":"Vincent Le"},"message":"Fix updating the changenum field with a PUT call to ReviewRequest\n\nMaking a PUT request to the ReviewRequest webapi with an updated changenum\nfield such as:\n\n    `curl http://reviewboard.example.com/api/review-requests/8/ -X PUT -d changenum=1234`\n\nfor a perforce review request would not save the commit_id properly. This lead\nto two modifications made to the PUT command regarding changenum. The changenum\nis converted using six.text_type to make sure that it is a string, and the save\nlogic has been updated to make sure that the review request object is saved\nwith the correct update_fields.\n\nTesting Done:\nTwo new test cases were added:\n- Tests the initialization of ReviewRequest with changenum, and checks if the\n  instance has the proper changenum and an empty commit_id.\n- Tests the PUT call with changenum, and ensures the payload and the\n  ReviewRequest saved have their changenum and commit_id changed to match up.\nThis includes the implementation for TestTool.get_changeset was made, for\nscmtools that support pending changesets.\n\nBugs closed: 3685\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6774/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/6e485ace9e6ef58a515d71aa9151ef70d4c35569"},{"sha":"a0c643185140af435cf1aaa25919c069621a0527","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/a0c643185140af435cf1aaa25919c069621a0527"},{"sha":"47cd8fa4fd7055dcc6bb5e572a8b4f9f48961e3f","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Provide a good error when trying to POST a duplicate repository.\n\nOur validation when using the repository resource to create new repositories\nhandled the case where an individual field in the model didn't validate, but\ndidn't handle the case of conflicting names.\n\nThis adds a new API error for when the repository already exists, and adds a\ntest to verify that it's being used.\n\nTesting done:\nRan unit tests.\n\nFixes bug 3625.\n\nReviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/6795/","distinct":false,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/47cd8fa4fd7055dcc6bb5e572a8b4f9f48961e3f"},{"sha":"8ebb978ebec719abd98694814722ec92a8fc9c1e","author":{"email":"c4a40333d2e70b3fcac4e7cd05d0e9037471cc26@gmail.com","name":"David Trowbridge"},"message":"Merge branch 'release-2.0.x'","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/chipx86/reviewboard/commits/8ebb978ebec719abd98694814722ec92a8fc9c1e"}]}