The previous version of our code only worked with python-requests <
1.0 (as is the case on our servers), the new version will work with
any python-requests new enough to have a .json at all.
(imported from commit 77ffe3e0d890fe88776c313e0e3289aee1bb30ea)
Previously we sent it always as "data", which caused problems for GET
requests where there is no request body.
(imported from commit 20084d1da1b8228cc484536ca4d6f77f547a9d78)
We also switch the Python client to use a client string of "API: Python"
to allow us to determine more easily which bindings our users are using.
(imported from commit 7216c3d150b371835f14d1bc8d81979a92e44925)
After this commit, we built an API tarball and sent it to
CUSTOMER4, and then promptly reverted the commit so that
we could continue as we had been before.
(imported from commit 662519a79edd508e7c115b451a7ec6fbdf1fc0a4)
To incorporate the site parsing fix from a couple weeks ago.
Before deploying this to prod we need to run build-api-tarball and
deploy the code to humbughq.com as for usual API releases.
(imported from commit f6711f5cc07d174c30866029032a595ecee785a3)
We leave the stuff under api/ alone for now, since we need to be able to ship
it as a standalone thing.
tools/post-receive wasn't using the function anyway.
For push to master: Push this commit, update post-receive per instructions at
the top of that file, then push the rest of the branch to confirm that the hook
still works.
No manual instructions for prod.
(imported from commit 9bcbe14c08d15eda47d82f0b702bad33e217a074)
At Ksplice we used /usr/bin/python because we shipped dependencies as Debian /
Red Hat packages, which would be installed against the system Python. We were
also very careful to use only Python 2.3 features so that even old system
Python would still work.
None of that is true at Humbug. We expect users to install dependencies
themselves, so it's more likely that the Python in $PATH is correct. On OS X
in particular, it's common to have five broken Python installs and there's no
expectation that /usr/bin/python is the right one.
The files which aren't marked executable are not interesting to run as scripts,
so we just remove the line there. (In general it's common to have libraries
that can also be executed, to run test cases or whatever, but that's not the
case here.)
(imported from commit 437d4aee2c6e66601ad3334eefd50749cce2eca6)
We need to run build-api-tarball and release it on prod when pushing
this commit to prod.
(imported from commit 09e86500d2d208b1972c87444b4c2d56faafc8e6)
Realistically, if the bot crashes once, it'll probably crash the next
time too, so I'm not convinced we need this loop at all, but in the
interests of avoiding churn on an extensively tested script, I'm going
to err on the side of the minimal change here.
(imported from commit e2bbd3700395ba4d0b181a4616e816e8f1231669)
Before pushing this to prod, we need to build the 0.1.2 API tarball
and deploy it to the appropriate place on our servers.
(imported from commit ec1a07b3cc2a3e360dac32823ff7cd9de9de1da2)
Previously we were installing data files to e.g. /usr/local/example
and /usr/local/integrations, which is really not OK.
(imported from commit 0efb50412f93efabfe55443d5cac57a8ebb9fe06)
This works much better for working with staging, since rather than
needing to tell each individual tool that you're using staging, you
just specify that along with your API (which at the moment implies
whether you should be using staging or prod).
(imported from commit c1de8e72c24f35ef2160bce5339a5f03c6e1da95)
It doesn't matter for this script, but I worry the code will be
copy-pasted into other new plugins.
(imported from commit 0fe5280af5aa05a7efc3d146f1570f9a72c62027)
