Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
<?php
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
final class AlmanacPropertyEditController
|
2016-02-22 21:53:40 +01:00
|
|
|
extends AlmanacPropertyController {
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public function handleRequest(AphrontRequest $request) {
|
|
|
|
$viewer = $request->getViewer();
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 21:53:40 +01:00
|
|
|
$response = $this->loadPropertyObject();
|
|
|
|
if ($response) {
|
|
|
|
return $response;
|
2014-12-17 20:10:50 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 21:53:40 +01:00
|
|
|
$object = $this->getPropertyObject();
|
2014-12-17 20:10:50 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$cancel_uri = $object->getURI();
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
$property_key = $request->getStr('key');
|
2014-12-17 20:10:50 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!strlen($property_key)) {
|
|
|
|
return $this->buildPropertyKeyResponse($cancel_uri, null);
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
} else {
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
$error = null;
|
|
|
|
try {
|
|
|
|
AlmanacNames::validateName($property_key);
|
|
|
|
} catch (Exception $ex) {
|
|
|
|
$error = $ex->getMessage();
|
|
|
|
}
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
// NOTE: If you enter an existing name, we're just treating it as an
|
|
|
|
// edit operation. This might be a little confusing.
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
if ($error !== null) {
|
|
|
|
if ($request->isFormPost()) {
|
|
|
|
// The user is creating a new property and picked a bad name. Give
|
|
|
|
// them an opportunity to fix it.
|
|
|
|
return $this->buildPropertyKeyResponse($cancel_uri, $error);
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
} else {
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
// The user is editing an invalid property.
|
|
|
|
return $this->newDialog()
|
|
|
|
->setTitle(pht('Invalid Property'))
|
|
|
|
->appendParagraph(
|
|
|
|
pht(
|
|
|
|
'The property name "%s" is invalid. This property can not '.
|
|
|
|
'be edited.',
|
|
|
|
$property_key))
|
|
|
|
->appendParagraph($error)
|
|
|
|
->addCancelButton($cancel_uri);
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
return $object->newAlmanacPropertyEditEngine()
|
|
|
|
->addContextParameter('objectPHID')
|
|
|
|
->addContextParameter('key')
|
|
|
|
->setTargetObject($object)
|
|
|
|
->setPropertyKey($property_key)
|
|
|
|
->setController($this)
|
|
|
|
->buildResponse();
|
|
|
|
}
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
private function buildPropertyKeyResponse($cancel_uri, $error) {
|
|
|
|
$viewer = $this->getViewer();
|
|
|
|
$request = $this->getRequest();
|
|
|
|
$v_key = $request->getStr('key');
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
if ($error !== null) {
|
|
|
|
$e_key = pht('Invalid');
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
$e_key = true;
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$form = id(new AphrontFormView())
|
|
|
|
->setUser($viewer)
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
->appendChild(
|
|
|
|
id(new AphrontFormTextControl())
|
|
|
|
->setName('key')
|
|
|
|
->setLabel(pht('Name'))
|
|
|
|
->setValue($v_key)
|
|
|
|
->setError($e_key));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$errors = array();
|
|
|
|
if ($error !== null) {
|
|
|
|
$errors[] = $error;
|
|
|
|
}
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return $this->newDialog()
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
->setTitle(pht('Add Property'))
|
|
|
|
->addHiddenInput('objectPHID', $request->getStr('objectPHID'))
|
|
|
|
->setErrors($errors)
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
->appendForm($form)
|
2016-02-22 15:35:30 +01:00
|
|
|
->addSubmitButton(pht('Continue'))
|
Give Almanac generic, custom-field-based properties
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
2014-11-06 00:27:16 +01:00
|
|
|
->addCancelButton($cancel_uri);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|