Review Board

ChangeLog: October 24, 2019 – The Python 3 and Django 1.11 Migration

Christian Hammond 2 Comments

Hi, Christian Hammond here. Welcome back to ChangeLog, where we cover the latest going on in Review Board, RBCommons, and Beanbag in general. It’s been a while since we’ve posted one of these, but we’re aiming to bring this back as a weekly series.

There’s a lot to talk about.

The Short Version

  • We delayed Review Board 4.0 to bring Django 1.11 and Python 3 support. This will not be released by Python 2’s End Of Life date.
  • Python 3 and Django 1.11 support has been in the works for a long time, but is far more complex than it may seem.

The Longer Version: Where are we today

We’ve had four main focuses this year:

  • Getting Review Board 4.0 beta 1 ready to launch. This is way behind our original schedule, but intentionally so — we’ll go over the reasons why in a minute.
  • Bringing integrations options to RBCommons and improving team management, billing, and signup.
  • Building out new functionality for Power Pack (PDF diffing, and in-progress authentication improvements).
  • Growing our business (the prior two tasks were part of that), supporting customers, and assisting some with large projects of their own.

This along with a multitude of smaller tasks taking our time throughout the year (and, on a personal note, dealing with the aftermath of the Paradise, CA “Camp Fire.”)

Most of you are here to find out about Review Board, so let’s dive into that.

The “World Update”: Review Board 4.0, Python 3, and Django 1.11

Our original goal for Review Board 4.0 was to bring support for multi-commit review requests and to ship that. This was a large project, as Review Board was originally written before DVCS was common (Subversion and Perforce were the primarily open source and enterprise solutions).

The problem though, is Python 2 End Of Life is coming up fast, and if we kept on schedule with Review Board 4.0, it would be a long time until we’d support Python 3. So we decided to delay 4.0 in order to get it ready for Python 3.

Note that we also still need to support Python 2.7, since many companies are still heavily tied to 2.7 (older distros, custom extensions and scripts).

So what’s hard about supporting Python 3? Welllll….

The Python Compatibility Problem

Python 3 is leaps and bounds better than Python 2 in most ways, but porting a large and complex product from Python 2 to 3 is even harder than you think.

Most Python users know of the major differences:

  • Modules have moved and functions have been renamed
  • The default string type has changed from byte strings to Unicode
  • Some operators have changed
  • There’s new syntax additions
  • etc.

We thought we prepared years ago to make this move easy. We used Unicode strings in every file. We used the six module to help with using the right modules, types, and functions.

In the end, it was harder than we expected. Our biggest challenge was definitely the Byte Strings vs. Unicode Strings differences. We thought we were in good shape for this, but we weren’t close.

Review Board does a lot of text processing. We’re parsing uploaded diffs, pulling source files from repositories, matching those up and applying the patch to the source, and generating side-by-side diffs. Much of this logic is over 10 years old, even so, we put a substantial amount of work in preparing for Python 3 years ago, so we were shocked by how much we got this wrong.

The problem comes down to the differences in how Python 2 and 3 would handle shoving two different string types together, which is very easy to do accidentally. Python 2 would roll with it, as in many cases the string types were compatible (and would automatically encode/decode so long as the content was basically ASCII). In Python 3, they outright break — which is a better approach, but hard to transition to — and it led us down a rabbit hole of problems.

Missing b'...' prefixes, changes in string return types from Python functions, functions that are no longer compatible with both string types, and very difficult decisions to make regarding compatibility with third-party SCMs.

All the little regressions and inconsistencies added up. Here’s a few more examples:

  • Using Python’s pickle library was a mess. Defaults have changed and pickled data became incompatible (due to module reference and string type changes). We had to build in compatibility layers here and test them thoroughly.
  • Anything that even subtly/unintentionally relied on dictionary sort orders would break.
  • Getting data in/out of processes, streams, and many other objects and functions is now way more sensitive to encoding issues, and required a lot of careful rewrites and testing.
  • Many functions (in Python and third-party modules) that used to return lists now return generators, due to their reliance on other functions that changed return types, and this can cause all sorts of subtle behavioral changes.

We’ve spent a lot of time tracking down issues that might immediately crash or might affect data several stages down, and sometimes be traced to something outside our codebase.

Fixing some Python issues means upgrading third-party modules, which can introduce their own new set of changes, regressions, and new rounds of work.

And the biggest source of that was Django.

The Django Problem

Django 1.6 (the version we’ve been using) breaks on Python 3.6+. This meant we had to upgrade to a newer version, something we’ve been putting off.

Django 1.7 introduced built-in support for database migrations. Quite nice for many projects, but the design was sub-optimal for applications like ours (upgrades could take hours or days longer than our approach) and was fundamentally incompatible with our own Django Evolution.

Many other core components of Django (the foundation for the administration UI, template rendering, URL management, forms, and all sorts of other common and obscure parts) have also largely changed over time in some pretty important ways.

We needed a solution for all of this, and we knew that would take time. To compensate we had to:

  1. Rewrite Django Evolution completely to coordinate evolutions and migrations and support modern Django: ~2 years of work, off and on, with hard problems to ponder
  2. Rewrite our administration UI completely to disconnect from Django’s (ensuring we don’t break again when we move to Django 2.x): estimated ~3 months of steady work, still in progress
  3. Build compatibility layers to help keep older code working and help with new code: ~2 months
  4. Just porting in general, updating dependencies, etc: ~3 months

We’re not done, but we’re close.

The Extensions Problem

Review Board is built to allow third-parties to extend its functionality, modify behavior, and link up with other in-house services. We try to be careful not to break extension functionality, and over time we’ve gotten more strict about providing compatibility and an upgrade path for functionality we want to deprecate or change.

The Python 3 and Django 1.11 upgrade is going to affect just about everybody who’s writing an extension. Some of the work we’ve done on adding compatibility layers will help with this process, but it’s going to mean a longer upgrade cycle for some companies.

We knew from the beginning that we’re going to have our hands full helping these companies out (as part of our support contracts), and that it’d be in our best interest to delay the release and break everything all at once instead of spreading out the breakages across multiple releases, and to also give ourselves time to figure out how best to minimize those breakages.

Most projects moving to Python 3 or to newer versions of Django don’t have to worry about this domino effect in the same way.

Timetable?

I hesitate to say when beta 1 will be done (been wrong before), but I can say that the last major piece of development is wrapping up. We’ll be kicking the tires on it, and want to get a beta out as soon as it’s stable enough.

We may not enable Python 3 builds for beta 1, focusing instead on Django 1.11 testing (Python 3 support is still going to be in development during this time), however we’re working with select customers on real-world testing against Python 3.

Community Questions

Every week, we’d like to address some questions, concerns, suggestions, etc. from the community. If you have any questions for next week, please reach out to us.

Q. The community forum seems quiet at times. Why is that?

A. Support requests from companies with support contracts are conducted over a separate support tracker. We always prioritize these support requests over any other work, and increasingly more companies are moving to this method of support for Review Board.

Q. Will Review Board 4.0 ship with Python 3 before the Python 2 End Of Life date?

A. No, it’s going to miss that date. Python 2.7 is still going to be required for now.

Q. There’s years of open review requests on reviews.reviewboard.org. Why is that?

A. We work with university students every semester to help prepare them for their jobs in the tech industry. They spend their semester building features for Review Board, most of which are prototypes. These make up the majority of the review requests on there. Others are contributions that might be outdated, might have been missed, might be incomplete, or might just not have been reviewed yet.

Next Week

We’ll be going over our new CSS component standard for the project and dive deeper into the new administration UI.

Again, if you have any questions, or anything you’re curious about and want us to cover, please reach out on our community forum.

Read More

Power Pack 3.0: PDF Diffs and License Updates

Christian Hammond

The new major release of Power Pack 3.0 brings the ability to diff PDF documents, comparing how the text of the document changes between revisions, and makes it easier to manage your license subscriptions.

Viewing Differences in PDFs

This can drastically cut down on the time needed to read through documents as the author takes in suggested edits from reviewers. Just like a code diff, any text changes made in a document are shown inline in the PDF, color-coded for easier viewing.

A handy new sidebar view catalogues all the changes made throughout the document, so there’s no need to carefully scrutinize as you scroll.

If you do need to scroll, a new “Lock scroll” checkbox gives you control over whether the documents should scroll in sync, or scroll individually.

In order to enable diffing support for PDFs, you will need a PDF document that contains text information embedded in the document (such as when printing to PDF or using OCR on a scanned document). It’s also important to update the existing PDF file attachment with the new document, instead of creating a brand new upload.

Easier License Management

We’ve revamped the Power Pack configuration page to better show the status and health of your license, how quickly the expiration date is coming up or whether you’re hitting your user cap.

The new “Manage your license” button takes you straight to our license portal where you can renew your license, convert to a yearly subscription, add additional users, and more.

Power Pack now checks for updates to your license automatically when viewing the Power Pack configuration page, and will install any new license it finds. You no longer need to download and install new license files from the license portal yourself.

Plus the Usual Bug Fixes

We’ve sorted out some crashes and visual glitches in reports, as well as a compatibility problem with AWS CodeCommit. The full list of changes are in the release notes.

Get started today with a 30 day trial license. After 30 days, enjoy a complimentary license for up to 2 users forever, or purchase a license for the rest of your organization.

Read More

ChangeLog: November 5, 2018

Christian Hammond

The World Update: Python 3 and Django 2

In a previous post, we talked the work we’re doing to move to modern versions of Python and Django. We’re calling this the “World Update,” and it’s quite a large and difficult project.

Database Migrations and Django Evolution

Much of the difficulty comes from an incompatibility between how we handle database migrations (using Django Evolution) and how Django handles them (using their built-in migrations support). These aren’t at all compatible, and for many reasons (legacy support and performance), we don’t want to ditch Django Evolution. This has by far been the biggest hurdle to overcome for the World Update.

We’ve been working on this, reworking nearly all of Django Evolution to better utilize migration support in Django, to provide a new set of generic structures for describing database state and modifications, and to (soon) hook into and partly override the migration process to allow both to co-exist.

Progress on this had been steady, and we feel we’re reaching a point where we’ll be able to fully support migrations in Django Evolution.

Djblets and Review Board Work

We now have Djblets working with modern Python 3.x releases and Django 1.6 through 2.1, so we’re in good shape there.

Review Board has a large number of patches in the works to bring Python 3.x and Django 2.1 compatibility. The biggest challenge in Review Board has to do with string type safety. In Python 2.x, Unicode and byte strings are somewhat interchangeable, but there’s a sharp divide in Python 3. We’ve found many cases where we’ve made bad assumptions about string types in Review Board, and are working on both fixing these and adding strict type checks.

World Update Releases

We’re expecting that Review Board 5.0 will require Python 3.5+ and the latest Django 2.x. Administrators will have to make sure they’re running a modern OS with the necessary version of Python, and extension authors will have some updates to perform, but in the end this will be so worth it.

Review Board 4.0 Status

We were initially hoping to release this in August, but that certainly didn’t happen. Too many things came up over this year that took away from the release.

The good news is, DVCS works, and we’re trying to polish up the experience. There’s a few other features we’re also trying to get into 4.0, but once we’re at a point where we feel people can begin safely using DVCS, the beta will start shipping. That will be… soon-ish. We’ll see what happens with the holidays.

Read More

RBTools 1.0 is here!

Christian Hammond

RBTools has been an important part of the life of Review Board users for many years. While it started off as a single tool for posting review requests, its feature set has evolved with time, turning into an extensible set of tools and APIs for talking to Review Board.

Today, we’re finally pulling RBTools out of the 0.x era with the release of RBTools 1.0.

Compatible with Python 3

Both the RBTools commands and the Python API now support Python 2.7 and 3.5+.

(Please let us know if you hit any issues on Python 3, as this is still pretty new.)

Better Repository Detection and Git Support

RBTools now does a better job determining which repository it’s working with, in case there’s confusion. For example, a Mercurial repository nested in a Git-managed home directory will no longer cause problems.

Git repositories in particular are now easier to work with. When generating a diff, RBTools now looks for the nearest upstream parent commit or branch, instead of requiring that users or repositories configure a specific tracking branch.

Publish Automated Reviews

Writing your own automated review solutions for Review Board 3.0 or RBCommons just became easier through the new rbt status-update command. Your scripts can use it to file a pending status update on a review request (showing that checks are being performed) and then update it to say that all is well or to report issues that need to be fixed.

This is useful for in-house continuous integration setups where you’re analyzing code for errors, style issues, documentation, or any other requirements you might have.

Easily Land Complex Dependent Changes

rbt land can now land multiple review requests tied together using the Depends On field.

This works with -r to take the ID of the review request you want to land. It will figure out which review requests must land before it and in which order. For example, if review request 3 depends on 2, which depends on 1, you can run:

$ rbt land --recursive -r 3

Instead of:

$ rbt land -r 1
$ rbt land -r 2
$ rbt land -r 3

This is a precursor to the new DVCS support coming soon in Review Board 4.0.

And That’s Not All

  • rbt setup-completion was added to enable auto-completion of RBTools commands and arguments in Bash and ZSH shells.

  • rbt alias was added to help you list and test out your custom aliases.

  • rbt post –submit-as can now automate posting review request updates, and not just new review requests, on a user’s behalf.

  • rbt post -m and rbt publish -m let you specify a custom description of your draft’s changes when publishing (equivalent to filling out the “Describe your changes” box when publishing in the browser).

  • rbt post –trivial-publish and rbt publish –trivial let you publish trivial updates to a review request without sending out e-mails to everyone (when using Review Board 3.0 or RBCommons).

  • rbt status now lists the review state and local branch for each review request you have up for review.

  • Warnings and errors in command output is now specially highlighted to help it stand out.

  • Several fixes and improvements for Git and Subversion compatibility.

  • The API has been improved, supporting extra_data fields and easier pagination of resources.

And plenty of other fixes and improvements. See the release notes for the full list of changes in 1.0.

Download It Today!

RBTools is out today for Windows, Linux, and Mac. Head on over to the downloads page for installation instructions.

Read More

A New Era of Privacy – Beanbag, Review Board, and You

Christian Hammond

If you’ve been on the Internet at all in the past few weeks, you’ve likely been bombarded by e-mails from every service you’ve ever used telling you that they’ve updated their privacy policy.

Yes, we’ve updated ours too, but we want to talk to you about how we manage your data, the greater picture of privacy on the Internet, the European Union’s new GDPR legislation, and why this all matters to you, no matter where you are in the world.

GDPR: A new standard for privacy

On May 25th, the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) goes into effect in the EU. It gives users there an unprecedented level of control and insight into their personal information. Amongst other things:

  • People must be able to change, delete, or request copies of their personally identifiable information
  • Companies need a valid legal basis for the usage of that information (which may require getting consent for that use)
  • Handing that data off to third-parties also requires a legal basis, and must be documented in a privacy policy
  • That privacy policy must be able to be read and understood without a law degree

You must admit, that’s pretty nice. Though companies are not required to give these rights to non-EU residents, many (including us) are treating this as a new global standard.

Some parts of the GDPR are a bit vague and not all companies see eye-to-eye on the level of control you should have. We’re hoping our approach goes above and beyond.

Our new privacy guarantees

We’ve always collected as little data as needed. We don’t need much, except to provide services to you, to aid in team communication, and to make use of third-party services we trust who help us run our business and provide support to you.

Still, under the GDPR, there was more for us to do. So here’s what we’re promising:

  • We’ll continue to only collect what we strictly need, and to document it clearly in our Privacy Policy.
  • We’ll continue to give you control of your data, and handle deletion and alteration requests, as we always have.
  • We’ve updated our services to request your consent (and give you full control over it at any time) for any optional usage of your personal information, and any usage we strictly require to run our services effectively will be clearly documented.
  • We’ve never sold your information and never will.
  • We’re extending the rights granted by the GDPR to all users of our products, everywhere.
  • If you ever have any questions or concerns about your data, we’re always here to help.

To help, we’ve built a whole new privacy-focused framework in Djblets to help with privacy guarantees and consent requests. All our software will be using this and we’ll be encouraging Review Board extension authors to use it. We’ll talk about this in more detail in an upcoming post.

What to expect by May 25th

Our Privacy Policy is up now, and will take effect on May 25th, 2018.

We’ll be activating the enhanced privacy support on RBCommons, reviewboard.org, reviews.reviewboard.org, and Splat in time for the 25th. If you’re a user on these, the next time you connect you’ll be asked to accept the Privacy Policy and to allow or block usage of your information for some services.

We’ll also be releasing Review Board 3.0.7 and Djblets 1.0.6, which are privacy-enhanced, optionally allowing for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy URLs and GDPR-compliant consent functionality. Many servers may not need this, but it’ll be available for those that do.

If you want to change, delete, or request any of your personal information from our servers, or want more information on all this, reach out to us at any time and we’ll help. You don’t need to wait for May 25th.

Read More

ChangeLog: New Integrations, Releases, and Prep for RBCommons 3.0

Christian Hammond

We’ve had a really busy couple of weeks since the last ChangeLog. There were two Review Board releases, a small setback with RB-Gateway, and lots of testing and infrastructure work for RBCommons 3.0.

Review Board 3.0.4 and 3.0.5

Last week, we put out Review Board 3.0.4, a feature-packed release introducing:

It was a pretty great release, fulfilling a lot of feature requests we’ve had for a while an providing the foundation for some new work we’re doing. Unfortunately, there was a last-minute error that, in production, broke part of the form for repository configuration.

Really embarrassing.

Now, we’ve found most people don’t upgrade the same day that a release goes out (downtime must be scheduled, people are busy, etc.) so we mostly started hearing about it two days later. As soon as we realized the mistake, we quickly got a new release out, Review Board 3.0.5, and put some changes in place to help prevent this sort of last-minute problem from happening again.

The good news is that, in the meantime, we went through and fixed a bunch of bugs that didn’t make the 3.0.4 release, but were ready for 3.0.5. So really, we’re just hoping we can all pretend 3.0.4 was just a pre-release for 3.0.5 now 🙂

Review Board 3.0.6 is currently scheduled for April 10th. I’m expecting it to go smoothly.

RB-Gateway Difficulties and Delays

RB-Gateway, our API wrapper around Git and Mercurial repositories, was supposed to release, well, today. Sadly, that’s not happening.

Let me back up. RB-Gateway is written in Go, unlike most of our projects which are Python-based. Go was chosen partly due to concurrency benefits for handling and serving up requests, and partly for its ease of cross-compilation and distribution (just drop it into a directory and run it on any supported platform).

It’s the cross-compilation that posed a problem. We use git2go, a Go wrapper around libgit2, a C library for talking to Git repositories. We don’t need a lot from it, but it made sense to “go” with that (sorry).

Problem is, including a C library makes cross-compilation much harder, and there’s threads full of discussions on issues with compiling and utilizing git2go in production, depending on how it’s compiled and used. So we’re planning to remove git2go usage.

Instead, we’re evaluating other Git libraries. We probably won’t roll our own, but as we don’t really need much from a Go library, we’ll “go” that route if we need to (sorry).

When that’s done, we should be ready to release.

Prep for RBCommons 3.0

This Friday, we’re beginning an upgrade of RBCommons, bringing many of the features of Review Board 3.0 to the service. We’ve spent much of this week getting this ready — rebuilding servers, testing database migrations, running through checklists of manual feature tests, etc.

There’s going to be a lot to love in this release, but those following Review Board development will surely notice that some features (such as Slack, Asana, etc. integrations) will not be there on launch. We have just a bit more work to do before those are ready. We want those as much as anybody, so they’re high up on the priority list.

The blocker right now is that the administration pages for some of these features are built to plug into the Django administration page, not the custom RBCommons team administration page. So there’s still some work to do before that’s complete. Soon, though!

The upgrade should be smooth, and we should be back up in only a few hours, but just in case, we’re leaving the maintenance window open through Sunday. We aimed for a holiday weekend (well, holiday for a lot of people, anyway) to reduce the impact on users.

Read More

ChangeLog: Catching Up

Christian Hammond 2 Comments

It’s been too long since we last ran the ChangeLog series, and felt it was the right time to start it back up again. ChangeLog is a look into the latest behind-the-scenes work going into Review Board, RBCommons, and other Beanbag projects. While intended to be a weekly series, we’d like to start off with some of the bigger tasks and feature development from the past month.

Moving to Django 1.11 and Python 3

Today, all current versions of Review Board depend on Django 1.6, an old release that’s no longer supported by the Django project but is by us, and doesn’t support modern Python 3 releases.

We’ve been stuck on 1.6 because 1.7 introduced (and later mandated) a new way of handling database migrations, which is incompatible with the method we’ve always used. Reconciling the differences has been a challenge.

In the past month, we’ve made significant progress toward both the Django and Python updates:

  • Djblets 2.0 (our development release) is now compatible with Django 1.6 through 1.11 and Python 2.7, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.
  • Django Evolution (used for database migrations) now works with Django 1.6 through 1.11 and Python 2.7, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. Work’s being done to let it co-exist with Django migrations now.
  • Review Board has started receiving patches for Django 1.11 and Python 3.5+ now. This is still in development, and likely won’t make the Review Board 4.0 release, but will be there for 5.0.
  • RBTools 1.0 (shipping in a few months) now has full Python 3 support.

New Release Schedules


We’ve began moving to a train model for releases, and have all of our main and upcoming products now on the calendar.

Here’s what this currently looks like:


  • Review Board 4.0 (with DVCS support!) is expected to ship in August, 2018
  • Review Board 3.0.x releases will ship (generally) every other Tuesday
  • RBTools 1.0 is expected to ship April 12th
  • RB-Gateway is expected to ship March 28th

We’re planning to release a new major Review Board release every ~6 months, meaning smaller but more frequent releases. We’re still experimenting with the schedule and timeframe for these releases.

RB-Gateway

We’ve releasing RB-Gateway 1.0 this month. This is a microservice designed to sit in front of a Git or Mercurial repository, providing an API and set of integrations that can be used by Review Board or any other tool or service for more deeply working with your repository.

RB-Gateway doesn’t change your workflow, and can be dropped in with minimal effort. It completely replaces the cgit/gitweb workaround for standalone Git repositories, and means you don’t need to set up something more complicated like GitLab just to work with Review Board.

You’ll see more information on RB-Gateway’s capabilities when we release later this month, and we’ll cover improvements being made to it here.

Wrapping Up…

Those are really just the major highlights, to get everyone up to speed. It doesn’t include the new features we’ve recently built, like being able to filter files in the diff viewer based on filename patterns, a new command for creating Review Board extension source trees, the work done on kgb, or the crazy investigation into deadlocks that’s delayed Review Board 3.0.4.

Going forward, these will be smaller, covering only what’s been done over the past week. If you like these posts, and want to see this continue, please let us know! You can find us on reddit or on the community support list.

Read More

RBCommons updates have moved to the Beanbag Blog

Christian Hammond

For years, we’ve been maintaining three separate blogs for our products: the RBCommons Blog, Review Board News, and the Beanbag Blog. It made sense at the time to keep these separate, but these days it’s usually more confusing than it needs to be, with release announcements and helpful guides scattered across the blogs.

We began the process of consolidating these last night, and started with merging the RBCommons Blog into the Beanbag Blog. Unfortunately, due to a glitch with our mailing list provider, an e-mail went out today covering last February’s CloudFlare-related security issue. If you received this, we’re very sorry — that shouldn’t have happened, and you don’t need to worry about some new problem affecting RBCommons.

We’ll be posting more articles here going forward, along with RBCommons updates and RBTools release announcements. We recently started a series of articles on new Review Board features that will soon make its way to RBCommons as part of a major update we’re gearing up for.

We’re also planning to move the Review Board release announcements here, so there’s exactly one place to look for everything we’re working on.

And with that, we’d like to thank you all for being such wonderful customers. Have a Happy New Year, everyone! Here’s to a great 2018 🙂

Read More

Introducing Issue Verification and Ship-It! Revocation

Jamie Candiff

We’ve all been there…

It’s a week before the deadline. Your team is working through the night, eager to land their changes as quickly as possible. Your teammate, Jake, was feeling frazzled as he was trying to fix all the issues that had been filed on his review request. He’d just finished the issue you had filed and marked it “fixed.” Shortly after, another teammate files a new review with a “Ship It!” Breathing a sigh of relief, and eager to go home, Jake immediately lands the change.

It wasn’t until after the release of the product that you realized Jake had missed something important in your feedback. While his change had fixed the bug, it had broken another feature. You hadn’t had the chance to look over his change after he’d fixed it, since you were busy and it had fallen off your dashboard once it landed. If only Jake knew you wanted to take a second look, the release would have gone a lot more smoothly.

With Review Board 3.0, you can prevent this from ever happening again. We’ve added a new feature, Issue Verification, which keeps issues open until the reviewer has a chance to verify the fix.

You can activate this feature by checking the “Require Verification” box when opening a new issue.

 

 

Once the owner of the change resolves the issue as “Fixed” or “Dropped,” the status will change to “Pending Verification.” At this point, the issue is still considered open. It will be up to the reviewer to look over the fix and click “Verify Fixed” before it can be closed.

 

Filed a Ship It! prematurely and wish you could take it back?

Now you can with Review Board 3.0’s new Revocable Ship It! feature. The “Ship It!” label on any reviews you file will now have a little “x” button. Just click and confirm that you want to revoke it, and the review’s “Ship It!” tag will be removed, with the “Ship It!” text crossed out in the review.

 

 

These new features will help ensure that important reviewer feedback is addressed and that an unintentional or outdated “Ship It!” review no longer lets changes into the codebase prematurely. These features have been requested by many of you, and we would love to hear if they improve the review process for your team!

Read More

Introducing Slack Support in Review Board 3.0

Jamie Candiff

One of the highlights of the recently release Review Board 3.0 is our new integration with Slack. Projects and companies around the world use Slack for communication and collaboration within their teams. It also hooks into third-party products and services to provide live updates in chat. By enabling the Slack integration in Review Board 3.0, you will be able to keep your team informed of discussions and updates on review requests as they happen.

 

 

You can create as many Slack configurations as you need for your company. Each configuration can be customized based on your needs. For example, review requests for different groups can go to different channels. Those containing sensitive information such as security fixes can be filtered out entirely.

 

Getting Started

First, create an incoming Webhook integration on Slack. Once it has been created, Slack will generate a Webhook URL, which you’ll plug into Review Board in your new configuration. To create that configuration, open the Administration UI in Review Board and navigate to Integrations → Slack → Add A New Configuration. Paste your Webhook URL, like so:

 

 

Now you’re ready to customize your configuration by adding conditions. By default, a Slack configuration will post all discussions and updates to the channel. If you want to limit what’s posted, you can add one or more conditions to your configuration. These will operate off the data in the review requests being sent to Slack.

 

 

You have a lot of options when adding conditions. You can include or exclude messages depending on the review groups, repositories, summary and description content, branch field, and more. Custom extensions can even add new options, giving further control based on data and logic provided by the extension.

We hope this new integration will be a big help for your team members and your company as a whole. This has been a highly anticipated feature for some time now, requested by many of our users. We are excited to finally be able to bring it to you!

Read More