• 
  
    
 
    
 
    

    



    
    
    
    
     
    




    
 
    

  
    



    
 

 

  

  

 

    


  
    





    
 
    



  

    
 
 
    
  
    Work around a Perforce error regression in p4python 2024.1.2625398.
    
 
    

    



 
    
 
    

  Review Request #14080
  —
  Created Aug. 8, 2024 and submitted 

 
    


    




    




    






 
    
  
    
   Information

  
    



    
 
 
    
  chipx86
 
    

    





    
 
 
    
  Review Board
 
    

    





    
 
 
    
  release-7.x
 
    

    





    
 
 
    
  
 
    

    





    
 
 
    
  
 
    

    



 
    



 
    
  
    
   Reviewers

  
    



    
 
 
    
  reviewboard
 
    

    





    
 
 
    
  
 
    

    



 
    



    


    
 
    




  

    
 
 
    
  
    The recently-released p4python 2024.1.2625398 changed error handling to
    
separate out errors, warnings, and raw results. During __str__, it
    
prioritizes errors, then warnings, and then the raw value, depending on
    
what state is available. Unfortunately, they don't always set each of
    
these in the constructor, leading to AttributeErrors being raised.
    

    We now check for this and fall back to grabbing the raw value, which is
    
what we were implicitly checking in prior releases.
    
 
    

    





  

    
 
 
    
  
    Unit tests pass with the new build of p4python.
    
 
    

    




 
    

    





    
 
    




  
    
 
 
    
  


    
 
    
  
   
    

    Summary
    ID

   
    
      
  

   
    

    

     
    
      Work around a Perforce error regression in p4python 2024.1.2625398.
      
    The recently-released p4python 2024.1.2625398 changed error handling to
separate out errors, warnings, and raw results. During `__str__`, it
prioritizes errors, then warnings, and then the raw value, depending on
what state is available. Unfortunately, they don't always set each of
these in the constructor, leading to `AttributeError`s being raised.

We now check for this and fall back to grabbing the raw value, which is
what we were implicitly checking in prior releases.
    
     
    

        		
    e92041b39730f96eb0ea968e6e12e9ea96533296

   
    


      
 
    

    
    
 
    

    






 









 
    

    



  
    
 
    

    


    












    
 




 

    


 













    
 





 
    
  
    
   
    



david




   
    
   
    





    
  
    
 
    


 
    
  
    

   
    
   
    
    
     
david


    
    
   
    

  
    
  
    
  
    


      




    1. 
 
      
  
      
   
      Should we backport this to 6.x too?
      
  
      
 
      

 
      
  


      
 
      
 
        

  


      1. 
 
 
        
 
        
  
 
        
 
        
  
        Yeah, I'll be backporting this to several prior releases, probably as far back as 3.x just to make CI happy.
        
 
        

        2. 


 
      


      

 
      

      2. 















    2. 
 
      
  
      
   
      
  
      
 
      

 
      
  


      
 
      
 
        

  

 
      


      

 
      

      3. 


    

  
    
 
    

    












    
 



 
    
  
    
   
    



chipx86




   
    
   
    
  
    
 
    


 
    
  
    

   
    
   
    
    
     Review request changed
    
    
   
    

  
    
  
    
  
    




    

  
    
   
    
    Status:
   
    
   
    

    Completed

   
    
  
    



  
    
   
    
    Change Summary:
   
    
   
    
    
    Pushed to release-5.0.x (b86c064)