Fix Bitbucket repo name description error.

Review Request #10150 — Created Sept. 21, 2018 and submitted

Review Board
reviewboard, students

When adding a repository as an admin, and choosing Bitbucket as a
hosting service, an incorrect repository name description displays.
In the "Repository Name" description, when using the "Personal"
repository plan, the description would read "The username of the
user who owns the repository. This is the <repo_name> in<username>/<repo_name>/". This isn't correct.

It now reads "The name of the repository. This is the <repo_name> in<username>/<repo_name>/".

Tested by refreshing the page, and confirmed that the "Repository
Name" description is the new description. Also, navigated to
http://localhost:8080/admin/, clicked on "Add +" under Repositories,
and confirmed that on
http://localhost:8080/admin/db/scmtools/repository/add/ the
description text has changed.

No other description fields have changed.

  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • 0
  • 3
Description From Last Updated
  2. Please wrap your description and testing done fields at 72 columns (these turn into the commit message when we land it).

  3. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/ (Diff revision 1)

    Can you rewrap the strings in here to use up to 80 columns? We can probably make this be 3 lines instead of 4 now.

    1. Should I change lines 86-89 and 107-110 to also use 3 lines, to be consistent?

    2. I'm not certain you can, can you? That URL, I think, will bring us over the 80 char limit.

    3. It's not a URL in a comment, so I assumed you could split the URL up. It's possible to split the string into 3 lines with the URL and still stay within the 80 char limit.

  1. Looks good, thanks Storm!

  2. The change looks great! This comment is about the Testing Done. You're very descriptive, and that's always a great place to start from.

    The one thing you can probably get rid of is the bit about unit tests, since we don't actually test any of this (and the code being modified isn't client-side code). If anything, it'd be Python unit tests you'd care about, but we don't test help text.

    You mention the "6 known tests that do not pass," but this isn't really going to be useful information later. It's just a small detail of the state of those tests, but if I had to dig into the history of changes later and saw this, I wouldn't know how related this was to those test failures.

    So in this case, I'd just leave off the unit test information.

  1. Once Christian is happy, I'm happy :)

  1. Ship It!
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to release-3.0.x (64ab20b)