1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge.git synced 2024-11-24 15:52:41 +01:00
phorge-phorge/src/infrastructure/customfield/field/PhabricatorCustomField.php

870 lines
22 KiB
PHP
Raw Normal View History

Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
<?php
/**
* @task apps Building Applications with Custom Fields
* @task core Core Properties and Field Identity
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
* @task proxy Field Proxies
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
* @task context Contextual Data
* @task storage Field Storage
* @task appsearch Integration with ApplicationSearch
* @task appxaction Integration with ApplicationTransactions
* @task edit Integration with edit views
* @task view Integration with property views
* @task list Integration with list views
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
*/
abstract class PhabricatorCustomField {
private $viewer;
private $object;
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
private $proxy;
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
const ROLE_APPLICATIONTRANSACTIONS = 'ApplicationTransactions';
const ROLE_APPLICATIONSEARCH = 'ApplicationSearch';
const ROLE_STORAGE = 'storage';
const ROLE_DEFAULT = 'default';
const ROLE_EDIT = 'edit';
const ROLE_VIEW = 'view';
const ROLE_LIST = 'list';
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
/* -( Building Applications with Custom Fields )--------------------------- */
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
/**
* @task apps
*/
public static function raiseUnattachedException(
PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface $object,
$role) {
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldNotAttachedException(
"Call attachCustomFields() before getCustomFields()!");
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
}
/**
* @task apps
*/
public static function getObjectFields(
PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface $object,
$role) {
try {
$fields = $object->getCustomFields($role);
} catch (PhabricatorCustomFieldNotAttachedException $ex) {
$base_class = $object->getCustomFieldBaseClass();
$spec = $object->getCustomFieldSpecificationForRole($role);
if (!is_array($spec)) {
$obj_class = get_class($object);
throw new Exception(
"Expected an array from getCustomFieldSpecificationForRole() for ".
"object of class '{$obj_class}'.");
}
$fields = PhabricatorCustomField::buildFieldList($base_class, $spec);
foreach ($fields as $key => $field) {
if (!$field->shouldEnableForRole($role)) {
unset($fields[$key]);
}
}
foreach ($fields as $field) {
$field->setObject($object);
}
$object->attachCustomFields($role, $fields);
}
return $fields;
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
}
/**
* @task apps
*/
public static function getObjectField(
PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface $object,
$role,
$field_key) {
return idx(self::getObjectFields($object, $role), $field_key);
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
}
/**
* @task apps
*/
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
public static function buildFieldList($base_class, array $spec) {
$field_objects = id(new PhutilSymbolLoader())
->setAncestorClass($base_class)
->loadObjects();
$fields = array();
$from_map = array();
foreach ($field_objects as $field_object) {
$current_class = get_class($field_object);
foreach ($field_object->createFields() as $field) {
$key = $field->getFieldKey();
if (isset($fields[$key])) {
$original_class = $from_map[$key];
throw new Exception(
"Both '{$original_class}' and '{$current_class}' define a custom ".
"field with field key '{$key}'. Field keys must be unique.");
}
$from_map[$key] = $current_class;
$fields[$key] = $field;
}
}
foreach ($fields as $key => $field) {
if (!$field->isFieldEnabled()) {
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
unset($fields[$key]);
}
}
$fields = array_select_keys($fields, array_keys($spec)) + $fields;
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
foreach ($spec as $key => $config) {
if (empty($fields[$key])) {
continue;
}
if (!empty($config['disabled'])) {
if ($fields[$key]->canDisableField()) {
unset($fields[$key]);
}
}
}
return $fields;
}
/* -( Core Properties and Field Identity )--------------------------------- */
/**
* Return a key which uniquely identifies this field, like
* "mycompany:dinosaur:count". Normally you should provide some level of
* namespacing to prevent collisions.
*
* @return string String which uniquely identifies this field.
* @task core
*/
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
public function getFieldKey() {
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getFieldKey();
}
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException(
$this,
$field_key_is_incomplete = true);
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
}
/**
* Return a human-readable field name.
*
* @return string Human readable field name.
* @task core
*/
public function getFieldName() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getFieldName();
}
return $this->getFieldKey();
}
/**
* Return a short, human-readable description of the field's behavior. This
* provides more context to administrators when they are customizing fields.
*
* @return string|null Optional human-readable description.
* @task core
*/
public function getFieldDescription() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getFieldDescription();
}
return null;
}
/**
* Most field implementations are unique, in that one class corresponds to
* one field. However, some field implementations are general and a single
* implementation may drive several fields.
*
* For general implementations, the general field implementation can return
* multiple field instances here.
*
* @return list<PhabricatorCustomField> List of fields.
* @task core
*/
public function createFields() {
return array($this);
}
/**
* You can return `false` here if the field should not be enabled for any
* role. For example, it might depend on something (like an application or
* library) which isn't installed, or might have some global configuration
* which allows it to be disabled.
*
* @return bool False to completely disable this field for all roles.
* @task core
*/
public function isFieldEnabled() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->isFieldEnabled();
}
return true;
}
/**
* Low level selector for field availability. Fields can appear in different
* roles (like an edit view, a list view, etc.), but not every field needs
* to appear everywhere. Fields that are disabled in a role won't appear in
* that context within applications.
*
* Normally, you do not need to override this method. Instead, override the
* methods specific to roles you want to enable. For example, implement
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
* @{method:shouldUseStorage()} to activate the `'storage'` role.
*
* @return bool True to enable the field for the given role.
* @task core
*/
public function shouldEnableForRole($role) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldEnableForRole($role);
}
switch ($role) {
case self::ROLE_APPLICATIONTRANSACTIONS:
return $this->shouldAppearInApplicationTransactions();
case self::ROLE_APPLICATIONSEARCH:
return $this->shouldAppearInApplicationSearch();
case self::ROLE_STORAGE:
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
return $this->shouldUseStorage();
case self::ROLE_EDIT:
return $this->shouldAppearInEditView();
case self::ROLE_VIEW:
return $this->shouldAppearInPropertyView();
case self::ROLE_LIST:
return $this->shouldAppearInListView();
case self::ROLE_DEFAULT:
return true;
default:
throw new Exception("Unknown field role '{$role}'!");
}
}
/**
* Allow administrators to disable this field. Most fields should allow this,
* but some are fundamental to the behavior of the application and can be
* locked down to avoid chaos, disorder, and the decline of civilization.
*
* @return bool False to prevent this field from being disabled through
* configuration.
* @task core
*/
public function canDisableField() {
return true;
}
/**
* Return an index string which uniquely identifies this field.
*
* @return string Index string which uniquely identifies this field.
* @task core
*/
final public function getFieldIndex() {
return PhabricatorHash::digestForIndex($this->getFieldKey());
}
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
/* -( Field Proxies )------------------------------------------------------ */
/**
* Proxies allow a field to use some other field's implementation for most
* of their behavior while still subclassing an application field. When a
* proxy is set for a field with @{method:setProxy}, all of its methods will
* call through to the proxy by default.
*
* This is most commonly used to implement configuration-driven custom fields
* using @{class:PhabricatorStandardCustomField}.
*
* This method must be overridden to return `true` before a field can accept
* proxies.
*
* @return bool True if you can @{method:setProxy} this field.
* @task proxy
*/
public function canSetProxy() {
if ($this instanceof PhabricatorStandardCustomFieldInterface) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
/**
* Set the proxy implementation for this field. See @{method:canSetProxy} for
* discussion of field proxies.
*
* @param PhabricatorCustomField Field implementation.
* @return this
*/
final public function setProxy(PhabricatorCustomField $proxy) {
if (!$this->canSetProxy()) {
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldNotProxyException($this);
}
$this->proxy = $proxy;
return $this;
}
/**
* Get the field's proxy implementation, if any. For discussion, see
* @{method:canSetProxy}.
*
* @return PhabricatorCustomField|null Proxy field, if one is set.
*/
final public function getProxy() {
return $this->proxy;
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
/* -( Contextual Data )---------------------------------------------------- */
/**
* Sets the object this field belongs to.
*
* @param PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface The object this field belongs to.
* @task context
*/
final public function setObject(PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface $object) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
$this->proxy->setObject($object);
return $this;
}
$this->object = $object;
$this->didSetObject($object);
return $this;
}
/**
* Get the object this field belongs to.
*
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface The object this field belongs to.
* @task context
*/
final public function getObject() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getObject();
}
return $this->object;
}
/**
* This is a hook, primarily for subclasses to load object data.
*
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface The object this field belongs to.
* @return void
*/
protected function didSetObject(PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface $object) {
return;
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
/**
* @task context
*/
final public function setViewer(PhabricatorUser $viewer) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
$this->proxy->setViewer($viewer);
return $this;
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
$this->viewer = $viewer;
return $this;
}
/**
* @task context
*/
final public function getViewer() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getViewer();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
return $this->viewer;
}
/**
* @task context
*/
final protected function requireViewer() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->requireViewer();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
if (!$this->viewer) {
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldDataNotAvailableException($this);
}
return $this->viewer;
}
/* -( Storage )------------------------------------------------------------ */
/**
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
* Return true to use field storage.
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
*
* Fields which can be edited by the user will most commonly use storage,
* while some other types of fields (for instance, those which just display
* information in some stylized way) may not. Many builtin fields do not use
* storage because their data is available on the object itself.
*
* If you implement this, you must also implement @{method:getValueForStorage}
* and @{method:setValueFromStorage}.
*
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
* @return bool True to use storage.
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
* @task storage
*/
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
public function shouldUseStorage() {
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldUseStorage();
}
return false;
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
}
/**
* Return a new, empty storage object. This should be a subclass of
* @{class:PhabricatorCustomFieldStorage} which is bound to the application's
* database.
*
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldStorage New empty storage object.
* @task storage
*/
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
public function newStorageObject() {
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->newStorageObject();
}
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
/**
* Return a serialized representation of the field value, appropriate for
* storing in auxiliary field storage. You must implement this method if
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
* you implement @{method:shouldUseStorage}.
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
*
* If the field value is a scalar, it can be returned unmodiifed. If not,
* it should be serialized (for example, using JSON).
*
* @return string Serialized field value.
* @task storage
*/
public function getValueForStorage() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getValueForStorage();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/**
* Set the field's value given a serialized storage value. This is called
* when the field is loaded; if no data is available, the value will be
* null. You must implement this method if you implement
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
* @{method:shouldUseStorage}.
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
*
* Usually, the value can be loaded directly. If it isn't a scalar, you'll
* need to undo whatever serialization you applied in
* @{method:getValueForStorage}.
*
* @param string|null Serialized field representation (from
* @{method:getValueForStorage}) or null if no value has
* ever been stored.
* @return this
* @task storage
*/
public function setValueFromStorage($value) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->setValueFromStorage($value);
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/* -( ApplicationSearch )-------------------------------------------------- */
/**
* Appearing in ApplicationSearch allows a field to be indexed and searched
* for.
*
* @return bool True to appear in ApplicationSearch.
* @task appsearch
*/
public function shouldAppearInApplicationSearch() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldAppearInApplicationSearch();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
return false;
}
/**
* Return one or more indexes which this field can meaningfully query against
* to implement ApplicationSearch.
*
* Normally, you should build these using @{method:newStringIndex} and
* @{method:newNumericIndex}. For example, if a field holds a numeric value
* it might return a single numeric index:
*
* return array($this->newNumericIndex($this->getValue()));
*
* If a field holds a more complex value (like a list of users), it might
* return several string indexes:
*
* $indexes = array();
* foreach ($this->getValue() as $phid) {
* $indexes[] = $this->newStringIndex($phid);
* }
* return $indexes;
*
* @return list<PhabricatorCustomFieldIndexStorage> List of indexes.
* @task appsearch
*/
public function buildFieldIndexes() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->buildFieldIndexes();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
return array();
}
/**
* Build a new empty storage object for storing string indexes. Normally,
* this should be a concrete subclass of
* @{class:PhabricatorCustomFieldStringIndexStorage}.
*
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldStringIndexStorage Storage object.
* @task appsearch
*/
protected function newStringIndexStorage() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->newStringIndexStorage();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/**
* Build a new empty storage object for storing string indexes. Normally,
* this should be a concrete subclass of
* @{class:PhabricatorCustomFieldStringIndexStorage}.
*
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldStringIndexStorage Storage object.
* @task appsearch
*/
protected function newNumericIndexStorage() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->newStringIndexStorage();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/**
* Build and populate storage for a string index.
*
* @param string String to index.
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldStringIndexStorage Populated storage.
* @task appsearch
*/
protected function newStringIndex($value) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->newStringIndex();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
$key = $this->getFieldIndexKey();
return $this->newStringIndexStorage()
->setIndexKey($key)
->setIndexValue($value);
}
/**
* Build and populate storage for a numeric index.
*
* @param string Numeric value to index.
* @return PhabricatorCustomFieldNumericIndexStorage Populated storage.
* @task appsearch
*/
protected function newNumericIndex($value) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->newNumericIndex();
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
$key = $this->getFieldIndexKey();
return $this->newNumericIndexStorage()
->setIndexKey($key)
->setIndexValue($value);
}
/* -( ApplicationTransactions )-------------------------------------------- */
/**
* Appearing in ApplicationTrasactions allows a field to be edited using
* standard workflows.
*
* @return bool True to appear in ApplicationTransactions.
* @task appxaction
*/
public function shouldAppearInApplicationTransactions() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldAppearInApplicationTransactions();
}
return false;
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function getOldValueForApplicationTransactions() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getOldValueForApplicationTransactions();
}
return $this->getValueForStorage();
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function getNewValueForApplicationTransactions() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getNewValueForApplicationTransactions();
}
return $this->getValueForStorage();
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function setValueFromApplicationTransactions($value) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->setValueFromApplicationTransactions($value);
}
return $this->setValueFromStorage($value);
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function getNewValueFromApplicationTransactions(
PhabricatorApplicationTransaction $xaction) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getNewValueFromApplicationTransactions($xaction);
}
return $xaction->getNewValue();
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function getApplicationTransactionHasEffect(
PhabricatorApplicationTransaction $xaction) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getApplicationTransactionHasEffect($xaction);
}
return ($xaction->getOldValue() !== $xaction->getNewValue());
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function applyApplicationTransactionInternalEffects(
PhabricatorApplicationTransaction $xaction) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->applyApplicationTransactionInternalEffects($xaction);
}
return;
}
/**
* @task appxaction
*/
public function applyApplicationTransactionExternalEffects(
PhabricatorApplicationTransaction $xaction) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->applyApplicationTransactionExternalEffects($xaction);
}
if (!$this->shouldEnableForRole(self::ROLE_STORAGE)) {
return;
}
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
$this->setValueFromApplicationTransactions($xaction->getNewValue());
$value = $this->getValueForStorage();
$table = $this->newStorageObject();
$conn_w = $table->establishConnection('w');
if ($value === null) {
queryfx(
$conn_w,
'DELETE FROM %T WHERE objectPHID = %s AND fieldIndex = %s',
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
$table->getTableName(),
$this->getObject()->getPHID(),
$this->getFieldIndex());
} else {
queryfx(
$conn_w,
'INSERT INTO %T (objectPHID, fieldIndex, fieldValue)
VALUES (%s, %s, %s)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE fieldValue = VALUES(fieldValue)',
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
$table->getTableName(),
$this->getObject()->getPHID(),
$this->getFieldIndex(),
$value);
}
return;
}
/* -( Edit View )---------------------------------------------------------- */
/**
* @task edit
*/
public function shouldAppearInEditView() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldAppearInEditView();
}
return false;
}
/**
* @task edit
*/
public function readValueFromRequest(AphrontRequest $request) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->readValueFromRequest($request);
}
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/**
* @task edit
*/
public function renderEditControl() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->renderEditControl();
}
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/* -( Property View )------------------------------------------------------ */
/**
* @task view
*/
public function shouldAppearInPropertyView() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldAppearInPropertyView();
}
return false;
}
/**
* @task view
*/
public function renderPropertyViewLabel() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->renderPropertyViewLabel();
}
return $this->getFieldName();
}
/**
* @task view
*/
public function renderPropertyViewValue() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->renderPropertyViewValue();
}
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
/**
* @task view
*/
public function getStyleForPropertyView() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->getStyleForPropertyView();
}
return 'property';
}
/* -( List View )---------------------------------------------------------- */
/**
* @task list
*/
public function shouldAppearInListView() {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->shouldAppearInListView();
}
return false;
}
/**
* @task list
*/
public function renderOnListItem(PhabricatorObjectItemView $view) {
Support configuration-driven custom fields Summary: Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here: **PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller: foreach ($fields as $field) { // do some junk } Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`. **PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc). **Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it. The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes). **Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs. Test Plan: {F54240} {F54241} {F54242} Reviewers: btrahan Reviewed By: btrahan CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
2013-08-14 17:10:16 +02:00
if ($this->proxy) {
return $this->proxy->renderOnListItem($view);
}
throw new PhabricatorCustomFieldImplementationIncompleteException($this);
}
Begin generalizing custom fields Summary: Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit. For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though: - Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch. - Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed. - Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field. For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278. For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet. For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this: - We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled. - We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom. - There are two downsides to this approach: - If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream. - If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability. - I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to. - We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother. - There are numerous upsides to this approach: - We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration. - In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore. - Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click. - Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff. - Generally, it's super easy for users to understand. This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it. Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet. Reviewers: chad, seporaitis Reviewed By: chad CC: aran Maniphest Tasks: T1703 Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
2013-06-06 23:52:40 +02:00
}