Patch for avoiding Error 500 during first login in Review Board 1.7

Review Request #6017 — Created June 22, 2014 and discarded


Review Board


Based on this commit e1b4b68, I created a patch for version 1.7 to avoid the first login error 500 in 1.7 versions

  1. There's so much going on here with no explanation of the problem or any testing that was done.

    I'm not aware of any 500 during first login, and haven't heard of other reports. I think we need a lot more information from you about the problem you're seeing before we get to a patch stage.

    1. Hi Christian,

      Sorry, I thought it was a known issue. It was reported here

      Review Board team already fixed it for version 2.0, but the error is still present in version 1.7. In Bitnami, we offer both versions, so we want to have version 1.7 working properly. The error 500 only appears during the first login, after that it doesn't appear any more.

      This is the commit in your master branch were you fixed it for version 2.0, which I used to create the patch submitted.

      Hope it helps!

    2. Hi Carlos,

      Thanks for the info.

      That commit has since been largely reverted, already pretty deprecated, since we went and moved back to get_profile() calls.

      I think what we need is to find the core problems in 1.7 where get_profile() isn't sufficient, and fix those. Might be worth comparing those call sites to what's now in 2.0 to see how they look.

      A good place to start would be to find the tracebacks where this happens in 1.7, and then we can figure out what's appropriate.

    3. Hi Christian,

      Thank you very much. I didn't notice that you kept using get_profile() in 2.0. One quick question, are you going to keep releasing 1.7 versions? Or are you going to move to 2.0 development only? Just to know how worthy is to investigate this issue, due to the fact that it is already fixed in 2.0 versions.

    4. We'll continue to put out 1.7.x releases for important bugs and security issues. Our goal is to keep the code churn pretty low, though, in an effort to prevent regressions, so we want to be strict with any changes going into 1.7.x for now.

      We're really hoping to get more and more people to move onto 2.0, though.

Review request changed
Change Summary:
Discarded in favor of /r/6111/ which is a much more focused fix for the one issue that has been encountered in production.