|
|
|
Allow the base URL to be a free-form string.
We will still fail with a bad URL if we go down the "fetch base"
codepath, but as review metadata, we no longer require a valid URL.
This is because db.Link() only allows a small set of URL schemes
(svn:, http:) and importantly not other valid URLs, such as git:
or svn+ssh:. For people who upload from projects where we don't
fetch base files, it's nice to use the base URL metadata to show
which project the code comes from.
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 1
Total messages: 4
|
evan
Not sure how to test this, but it seems to work.
|
15 years, 9 months ago (2010年03月23日 19:32:17 UTC) #1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Not sure how to test this, but it seems to work.
http://codereview.appspot.com/696041/diff/1/3 File codereview/views.py (left): http://codereview.appspot.com/696041/diff/1/3#oldcode162 codereview/views.py:162: else: Are you sure that you want to remove this check? If I'm not mistaken IssueBaseForm is only used in the web ui where this check would be appropiate when uploading a new patch. What about moving this check to NewForm instead? Issues created with upload.py won't see the NewForm at all.
Sorry, I realized I didn't give you enough context. I updated the review description with another paragraph...
I was just wondering if we should keep the db.Link validation when a new issue is created using the web form (but not when it's edited). However, the URL validation isn't sufficient either way if we need to download the base files. It should somehow verify that the computed URLs for base files are fine. But this should go into a different patch :) LGTM On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:50 PM, <evan@chromium.org> wrote: > Sorry, I realized I didn't give you enough context. I updated the > review description with another paragraph... > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/696041/show >