This task was filed via the "New Bug Report" form.
It works great now with Windows + Chrome + German keyboard layout!
Tue, Aug 15
Closing this for lack of feedback, feel free to resurrect it if you get back to it.
This isn't a bug; they aren't subscribers, and aren't listed in "Subscribers" in the right-hand column or in "Subscribers" in "Edit Task".
Mon, Aug 14
@aleb, if you like to continue discussion of this please use the appropriate channels, as @chad suggested above (at the time, they were Conpherence and Ponder, but the appropriate channel is now the community forum -- see: Discourse).
The error truncating behavior affects also Diffusion > R > Status, where only part of the stderr is shown, making it impossible to debug the problem without hacking Phabricator:
ab@phabricator-1-vm:/opt/bitnami$ diff apps/phabricator/libphutil/src/future/exec/CommandException.php.original apps/phabricator/libphutil/src/future/exec/CommandException.php 59c59 < $limit = 1000; --- > $limit = 1000000000;
Fri, Aug 11
Thu, Aug 10
T12956 has another situation where letting MenuItem generate 2+ items may be bad: we want to let a menu item steal the selection, but it's muddy to implement if each MenuItem can return several actual views.
Thanks for the detailed response, I certainly didn't expect it.
I believe the location of the OOM is a little misleading -- the real problem is loadFileData(). This returns the entire file as a string, and will thus:
The new rules on reports are still in flux a bit and extra-muddy for Community members, but I'd generally like to move to a "report + review" model for community reports, something like we currently have for code review. So the general idea is that your bug needs someone to review it and agree with it (e.g., reproduce a bug, or agree that a feature request is a brilliant new idea that makes sense and would be appropriate for the upstream and completely describes a reasonable, generally-experienced root problem) before it comes upstream.
I think this is a real bug. Here's a more complete example of what's going wrong, why it's wrong, and how to reproduce it.
Wed, Aug 9
I would open to accepting this as a bug report if I felt it was deliberated designed to work the way you expect, but was not (like a regression). Or if information was presented that all other repository viewers do it this way. Otherwise I think it's more 'nitpick' or 'feature request'. A cursory look at GitHub, seems they show the full diff as well: https://github.com/phacility/phabricator/commit/5c1e4488dedafda08684b33a8a4786cf687d2811
In general are you aware we no longer take bug reports or feature requests here?
What does "mysterious" mean.
Mon, Aug 7
Sun, Aug 6
I can confirm this.
Doesn't seem to reproduce any more - I have no issue importing from another milestone. Presumed fixed, but if not, please reopen with more detailed reproduction steps.
Just launched a test instancepoo and everything seems fine.
I wonder if this OOM error can also be hit in other workflow though, given that it seems to occur in PhabricatorFileStorageEngine::getRawFileDataIterator.
Yep, agreed that the re-targeted proposal is a better solution... I had just assumed that this was a documentation oversight.
Sat, Aug 5
The plan forward here is to correct the text. I will follow up with you on Discourse.
We require the "a revision's reviewers can always..." behavior. Please implement it instead of changing the text.
D7150 added this text ("a revision's reviewers can always...") and I said it "wasn't true but would be soon", but never made it true.
Fri, Aug 4
Thu, Aug 3
fwiw, I can't reproduce this on OSX chrome any more. going to go test windows in german.... wish me glück.