It seems like sentry-youtrack plugin is not fully compatible with the latest Sentry 9 version. I've discovered at least three issues:
Tricky combination of redis-py-cluster and redis: latest versions seems to be not compatible with each over out of the box.
Creation of new issues is broken due to absence of sentry/groups/details.html file.
The list of projects on YouTrack is not populated, therefore a project in Sentry can't be liked to a project in YouTrack.
I've created an issue in the repository of the plugin: https://github.com/bogdal/sentry-youtrack/issues/26, but the latest release was issued almost 2 years ago, therefore, I'm not sure this will be solved quickly. Maybe there workarounds or alternative solutions known by the community.
Related
I'm trying to update Sonarqube usage to the latest LTS Community version, which at present is version 6.7.5. Prior to the upgrade I have been using sonarqube 5.4 and the Github plugin, and with these when we make Github pull requests the Sonarqube analysis runs in "preview" scan mode and makes comments on the pull request for any issues the scan finds. This setup is largely following this pattern.
However, with the upgrade to 6.7.5 this same flow is no longer working. The Github plugin
"is deprecated, and its functionality more than replaced by the
Developer Edition."
I understand that the Developer version of Sonarqube has pull request commenting built-in, but I have a strong preference to continue using the Community version due to the cost differences. Essentially, something that was once free and part of the open source version seems to have been removed or broken in the latest free and open source version because a similar paid option now exists. So I am trying to find a way to preserve the previous Community version usage with the latest Community Sonarqube version. 6.7.5 Community version runs the Github plugin (even though it the plugin is deprecated), but so far I have been unable to get things to make comments on the Github pull requests.
Is there a combination of parameters/plugins that will allow my 6.7.5 Community version of Sonarqube to analyze and make comments on a Github pull request?
These may be relevant:
https://community.sonarsource.com/t/after-upgrade-to-sq-6-7-5-target-sonar-issues-report-issues-report-light-html-is-not-produced/1921
https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SONAR-9770
https://community.sonarsource.com/t/preview-mode-ignored/1234
I believe in my case the issue was that after upgrading the rule sets changed, so the rules I initially thought were being used with 6.7.5 were not in fact being applied. This gave the impression that Sonarqube was not commenting on the pull request and led to my question. But after enabling the rules appropriately I was able to see it comment on GitHub pull requests as expected. So this appears to be a case of user error!
I have a large project running on Laravel 4.2 and now I would like to upgrade it to the latest release (5.4)
On the upgrading guide I can see the steps to upgrade from each release to the next one, but the 4.2 to 5.0 requires a fresh install. Hence the question: should I install 5.4 (and fix problems) or 5.0 (running each upgrade)?
I'm possibily using any Laravel functionality, and have organized repositories for my own custom methods; I also need to maintain the database. I need to upgrade because I would like to use event bradcasting with Laravel Echo.
Thanks
To those looking for an answer: update directly to latest version, then fix changes along the way.
Explanation:
At first I tried to upgrade version by version; it was a pain. Every single vendor had different packages for each version and that caused issues even before correcting the code. I couldn't start fixing my code because the installation requirements of the vendors were failing at a certain point of the upgrade process.
Upgrading directly to latest version requires the correction of many things, but at least those are only related to your code. In my case I had to remove Sentry (authentication), Laravel OAuth, and some others I don't remember in favor of some native packages which I hope will be maintained properly. The upside of this approach is that once you have all the packages you need installed you can work directly on your code... which is what you have to do anyway.
I ran into an issue today where my preview server was running an older version of a project instead of the most recently published version. The most recently published version was 1.0.4.10, but after some testing, I determined that version was not the version of the application that the server was retrieving.
After trying a few things, I tried publishing a new version under 1.0.5.0 instead of continuing with the 1.0.4.xx numbering, and that fixed the issue.
VS's auto increment feature recommended 1.0.4.10, but is there an issue with this being the same as 1.0.4.1? So maybe it was running 1.0.4.9? Or something behind the scenes I'm not aware of?
Is there a stable version of SlickGrid that should be used for deployment or is it recommended practice to take a snapshot of the github repository and use that for deployment? I see a number of tags but none that is very recent (e.g., tag 2.02 is 7 months old and there have been lots of commits since then).
Up to now I have been tracking the SlickGrid github repository for development but I'd like to fix to a version before deploying. It would be nice if there was a recommended stable package download available (maybe there is and I haven't come across it?).
SlickGrid 2.1 is available as a release on github - official mailing list announcement here.
Does anyone have any information on Spring Web Flow 3 status?
Here are a few relevant links that support my sense that springsource has essentially abandoned the project:
1)Official roadmap indicates they are missing milestones by over a year now with no update to the roadmap.
2)Forum thread filled with these questions ignored by Keith Donald and Spring team.
3)Official Download page says the latest release is 2.2.1 but is actually 2.3 so that is not even being kept up-to-date anymore.
While Web Flow version 2 I'm sure is a great product, the issues above are all obvious red flags when it comes to evaluating an open source product -- as well as evaluating the company behind that project. Am I simply missing some communication channel where all this has been discussed in detail before? I find it hard to believe that springsource, a company that seemingly had their act together, would be this negligent with one of their flagship products.
They just added a graphical web flow editor into STS. See this InfoQ post. Also, I just checked JIRA and Fisheye and it looks like there's bug fixes going into a 2.3.1 coming that corresponds with Spring 3.1. So I don't think it's abandoned, it's just not getting new features.
Just wanted to mention that the latest version (2.3.1) of Spring Web Flow was released on Mar 27, 2012. See the changelog file: http://static.springsource.org/spring-webflow/docs/2.3.x/changelog.txt