Summary: Ref T10967. The old name was because we had a `getReviewers()` tied to `needRelationships()`, rename this method to use a simpler and more clear name.
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17519
Summary: Fixes T9790. This uses a simple renderer, like the inline context renderer, that emphasizes getting a quick glance at small changes and working reasonably on mobile devices.
Test Plan:
- Set `inline` setting to `9999`.
- Created a diff.
- Saw it render reasonably in HTML mail.
- Also tested text mail to make sure I didn't break that.
{F1310137, size=full}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9790
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15901
Summary:
Ref T10694. General improvements:
- Remove leading empty lines from context snippets.
- Remove trailing empty lines from context snippets.
- If we removed everything, render a note.
- Try using `style` instead of `<pre>`? My thinking is that maybe Airmail has weird default rules for `<pre>`, since that's the biggest / most obvious thing that's different about this element to me.
Test Plan: Viewed normal comments locally, faked a comment on an empty line in the middle of a lot of other empty lines.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15864
Summary:
Ref T10694.
- Shift margins/padding around so inlines with multiple paragraphs get reasonable spacing.
- Add `text-decoration: none` to the "View Inline" link to kill the underline.
Test Plan: {F1265342}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15863
Summary: Ref T10694. Move the inline style more toward a mix of standard`<pre>` style and the web UI style for inlines.
Test Plan: See screenshots in comments.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15857
Summary:
Ref T10694. This mostly prevents us from having a degenerate case if someone leaves a 200-line inline.
- For one-line inlines, show 1 line of context above and below (3 lines total).
- For 3+ line inlines, show just the inline.
- For 7+ line inlines, show only the first part.
Test Plan: Made a bunch of weird long/short/different-sized comments, saw reasonble-appearing context in text and HTML mail output.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15853
Summary:
Ref T10694. Ref T9790. When generating inline diff context, highlight it and then mangle the highlighted output into `style="..."` so it works in HTML.
Also try to tighten up some spacing/formatting stuff.
Test Plan:
Got some output in this vein:
{F1259937}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9790, T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15852
Summary:
Ref T10694. This is still missing some pieces, but seems to get most of the data into the mail in a plausible format:
- When an inline remarks on code, show the patch inline in the mail body.
- When an inline replies to another inline, show that other inline in the mail body.
- Apply remarkup rendering to inline content.
- Apply basic styling to mail body blocks.
Not covered yet:
- Syntax highlighting.
- Diff highlighting.
- Maybe clearer style/layout hints to connect comments to what they reply to? Current approach might get messy with inlines that have blockquotes and code blocks inside them, for example.
- I probably want to cap the amount of diff context we ever show to ~7 lines, even if you drag over 200 lines of code.
- CSS is a generally a bit rough still.
- The `unified-comment-context` option is effectively always on now, and should be removed.
- Text section is getting indented right now but probably shouldn't be.
- Spacing, etc., might be a bit off.
Test Plan:
Rigged Home to render these things, got a plausible-looking render (top is text, bottom is HTML):
{F1259052}
Sent myself some inline comment mail, got a plausible result.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15850
Summary: These arrays looks a little odd, most likely due to the autofix applied by `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_ARRAY_SEPARATOR`. See D12296 in which I attempt to improve the autocorrection from this linter rule.
Test Plan: N/A
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12281
Summary:
Fixes T7199. This still isn't a shining example of perfect code, but the raw amount of copy/paste is much lower than it used to be.
- Reduce code duplication between existing receivers.
- Expose receiving objects in help menus where appropriate.
- Connect some "TODO" receivers.
Test Plan:
- Sent mail to every supported object type.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12249
Summary: Ref T7199. Convert Differential to modern modular commands.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to send command and comment mail to Differential.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12239
Summary:
Ref T7199. In the vein of D12231, these options were a bad idea.
- They once served a very narrow, Facebook-specific need (see T1992), except even Facebook only used the Differential setting AFAIK.
- Outside of that special case, they are unused and essentially unusable (generally speaking, they do not meaningfully implement anything modular or replaceable).
- I have no knowledge of any install ever changing these settings, and can imagine no reason why they would.
Moving forward:
- If they really need to, they can fork locally and chagne one line.
- I expect "!actions" to make mail at least somewhat more modular soon, anyway.
- Any derived handlers would break after T7199 and need to be rewritten anyway, so this is just taking advantage of a BC break to do cleanup.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for removed configuration.
- Sent some mail from applications, verified the reply handlers set proper reply addresses.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12233
Summary:
Ref T7199. These were a bad idea which got copy-pasted a bunch.
- There is zero reason to ever set these to different things.
- Unsurprisingly, I don't know of any install which has them set to different things.
Unless I've completely forgotten about it, this option was not motivated by some obscure business need, it was just a bad decision which didn't catch anyone's attention at the time.
We partially remedied the mistake at some point by introducing `metamta.reply-handler-domain`, which works as a default for all applications, but never cleaned this mess up.
Test Plan: Sent some mail from applications, verified it picked up appropraite reply handler domains.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12231
Summary:
Ref T7199. This prepares for an exciting new world of more powerful "!action" commands. In particular:
- We parse multiple commands per mail.
- We parse command arguments (these are currently not used).
- We parse commands at the beginning or end of mail.
Additionally:
- Do a quick modernization pass on all handlers.
- Break legacy compatibility with really hacky Facebook stuff (see T1992). They've theoretically been on notice for a year and a half, and their setup relies on calling very old reply handler APIs directly.
- Some of these handlers had some copy/paste fluff.
- The Releeph handler is unreachable, but fix it //in theory//.
Test Plan:
- Sent mail to a file; used "!unsubscribe".
- Sent mail to a legalpad document; used "!unsubscribe".
- Sent mail to a task; used various "!close", "!claim", "!assign", etc.
- Sent mail to a paste.
- Sent mail to a revision; used various "!reject", "!claim", etc.
- Tried to send mail to a pull request but it's not actually reachable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12230
Summary:
Ref T7199. Although this is useful for discovery, it's un-useful enough that we already have an option to disable it, and most applications do not provide any meaningful instructions.
Throwing it away makes it easier to move forward and lets us get rid of a config option.
This is becoming a more advanced/power-user feature anyway, and the new syntax will be significantly more complex and hard to explain with a one-liner. I'm currently thinking that I'll maybe make the "help" menu a dropdown and give it some options like:
+---+
| O |
+---+---------------------+
| Maniphest Documentation |
| Maniphest Email Actions |
+-------------------------+
Then you click the "Email Actions" thing and get a runtime-derived list of available options. Not sure if I'll actually build that, but I think we can fairly throw the in-mail instructions away even if we don't go in that specific direction.
Test Plan: Grepped for `replyHandlerInstructions`, got no hits.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12229
Summary: Fixes T7088. Mainly this updates the documentation but I also snuck in tweaking how the domain reply handler is built. This does two main things -- makes the behavior consistent as some applications who didn't override this behavior would send out emails with reply tos AND makes it easier for us to deprecate the custom domain thing on a per application basis, which is just silly. On that note, the main documentation doesn't get into how this can be overridden, though I left in that mini blurb on the config setting itself. We could deprecate this harder and LOCK things if you want as well.
Test Plan: read docs, looked good. reasoned through re-factor
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7088
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11725
Summary: Fixes T1476. The body of the email should be just the output of some diff command.
Test Plan:
git diff master > text.txt; ./bin/mail receive-test --to <configured-diff-create-address> < text.txt; a diff was successfully created...! email generated had a working link to the diff.
./bin/mail receive-test --to <configured-diff-create-address> < README.md; a diff was not created as expected...! email generated had a sensical error message, telling me that the mail body should have been generated via a diff command
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: johnny-bit, Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1476
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11574
Summary: This fix is wrong - should be load and not get - but moreover this is actually correctly set as the reply handler is instantiated inside the DifferentialRevisionMailReceiver correctly; $this->getExclude was correct. Ref T5185.
Test Plan: this shall stop the fatal in production.
Reviewers: chad, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5185
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10101
Summary: Ref T5185. By code inspection, I am pretty sure before this patch it was doing a set of a get on itself which does nothing. Now, being careful not to break Facebook we get the proper exclusion phids. I am pretty sure the folks in T5185 are experiencing this in Differential only.
Test Plan: Get some folks on T5185 to play with this
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5185
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10087
Summary: Ref T5655. Some discussion in D9839. Generally speaking, `Phabricator{$name}Application` is clearer than `PhabricatorApplication{$name}`.
Test Plan:
# Pinned and uninstalled some applications.
# Applied patch and performed migrations.
# Verified that the pinned applications were still pinned and that the uninstalled applications were still uninstalled.
# Performed a sanity check on the database contents.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9982
Summary: Applied some more linter fixes that I previously missed because my global `arc` install was out-of-date.
Test Plan: Will run `arc unit` on another host.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9443
Summary: Ran `arc lint --apply-patches --everything` over rP, mainly to change double quotes to single quotes where appropriate. These changes also validate that the `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_DOUBLE_QUOTE` rule is working as expected.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9431
Summary: Some actions (notably, `!accept`) require more information than we currently load.
Test Plan: Piped in some `!accept` mail using `bin/mail receive-test`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8844
Summary:
Ref T4371. Ref T4699. Fixes T3994.
Currently, we're very conservative about sending errors back to users. A concern I had about this was that mistakes could lead to email loops, massive amounts of email spam, etc. Because of this, I was pretty hesitant about replying to email with more email when I wrote this stuff.
However, this was a long time ago. We now have Message-ID deduplication, "X-Phabricator-Sent-This-Mail", generally better mail infrastructure, and rate limiting. Together, these mechanisms should reasonably prevent anything crazy (primarily, infinite email loops) from happening.
Thus:
- When we hit any processing error after receiving a mail, try to send the author a reply with details about what went wrong. These are limited to 6 per hour per address.
- Rewrite most of the errors to be more detailed and informative.
- Rewrite most of the errors in a user-facing voice ("You sent this mail..." instead of "This mail was sent..").
- Remove the redundant, less sophisticated code which does something similar in Differential.
Test Plan:
- Using `scripts/mail/mail_receiver.php`, artificially received a pile of mail.
- Hit a bunch of different errors.
- Saw reasonable error mail get sent to me.
- Saw other reasonable error mail get rate limited.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3994, T4371, T4699
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8692
Summary:
Ref T2222. Brings the major mail features (affected files, patches) forward.
This drops some of the minor integrations which just show object state (like "Maniphest Tasks") since I think they're not very important. I'll put them back if users miss them.
Test Plan: Sent mail with inline/attached patches.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8459
Summary: Ref T2222. These no longer have any callsites. Also got rid of a little bit of other code which also no longer has callsites.
Test Plan: `grep`
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8443
Summary: Ref T2222. Moves this instance of CommentEditor to TransactionEditor.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to test receiving comment mail and action mail.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8427
Summary:
Currently, the linter raises `XHP29` warnings for these files because they are not abstract or final.
I guess there are two possibly solutions, either making the classes final or marking them as `@concrete-extensible`. Given that there are no subclasses of these classes in the `phabricator`, `arcanist` and `libphutil` repositories... I opted to declare the classes as final.
Test Plan:
The following linter warnings are gone:
```
>>> Lint for src/aphront/configuration/AphrontDefaultApplicationConfiguration.php:
Warning (XHP29) Class Not abstract Or final
This class is neither 'final' nor 'abstract', and does not have a
docblock marking it '@concrete-extensible'.
3 /**
4 * @group aphront
5 */
>>> 6 class AphrontDefaultApplicationConfiguration
7 extends AphrontApplicationConfiguration {
8
9 public function __construct() {
>>> Lint for src/applications/differential/mail/DifferentialReplyHandler.php:
Warning (XHP29) Class Not abstract Or final
This class is neither 'final' nor 'abstract', and does not have a
docblock marking it '@concrete-extensible'.
1 <?php
2
>>> 3 class DifferentialReplyHandler extends PhabricatorMailReplyHandler {
4
5 private $receivedMail;
6
```
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8347
Summary: Ref T2222. Adds a mostly-functional "Pro" comment controller. This does the core stuff, but does not yet do actions (accept, reject, etc.) or inline comments.
Test Plan: Changed the `if (false)` to an `if (true)`, then made some comments, etc. This is normally unreachable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8304
Summary: Ref T2222. Ref T1790. I partially modernized this recently, but bring it to the mail version too.
Test Plan: See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: zeeg, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1790, T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8294
Summary: Ref T2222. This is a `tmp.differential`-only issue. Inline comment transactions now have content, so we treat them like body text. We also render them separately as inline text. This produces mail where inlines are rendered twice.
Test Plan: Sent myself mail, saw only one copy of inlines.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8216
Summary:
See D8200. Ref T2222. Instead of writing one comment which can have a ton of different effects, write a series of one-effect comments. These will be easier to convert into ApplicationTransactions.
This has a minor user-facing effect of making these multiple-action comments render separately:
{F111919}
Once the migration completes, they should automatically merge together nicely again.
Test Plan: Made a bunch of comments and took a bunch of actions, all of which worked normally except that they rendered as several things instead of just one.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, FacebookPOC
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8201
Summary:
Ref T2222. Currently, one `DifferentialComment` can do a lot of things (add ccs, reviewers, comments, inline comments, and perform state changes). In the future, each `ApplicationTransaction` does only one thing. This is the primary piece of complexity which makes the upcoming migration risky, because each comment needs to migrate into multiple transactions.
I want to mitigate this complexity as much as possible before the migration itself happens. One approach I'm going to use to do that is to start writing one comment per effect now, so the mapping is more direct when the migration itself happens and the write code can be straightforward (one row per save()) after the migration.
This tackles a small piece of that, which is the mail Differential sends. Currently, Differential mail acts on a single comment. Instead, allow it to act on a list of comments, but always give it one comment for now. In the future, we can hand it several comments instead and still get the expected behavior.
This change should have no impact on any application behaviors.
Test Plan:
- Commented;
- commented with inline;
- added reviewers;
- added CCs;
- added CCs via mentions;
- updated revision;
- looked at all the mail, all of which seemed sane.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8199
Summary:
Via Asana. The tags on Differential mail are wrong in two cases:
- Transactions which submit inline comments but no comment text are not labeled as "comments", but should be.
- Non-close, non-comment transactions are not labeled at all, but should be labeled "other".
Test Plan: Submitted a no-comments, inlines-only transaction and got a message with proper `X-Phabricator-Mail-Tags` header.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7912
Summary: Fixes T4001. I broke this some time ago and no one has complained. I don't think it gets much use, and we haven't added it for the newer apps. Just get rid of it rather than adapt the URIs for ApplicationSearch.
Test Plan: Unit tests, sent myself some email.
Reviewers: zeeg, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4001
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7355
Test Plan:
Enable inline patches:
```
bin/config set metamta.differential.patch-format 'unified'
bin/config set metamta.differential.inline-patches 100000000
```
Create a new diff and confirm it renders correctly via email.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7198
Summary: I removed the only callsite in D7179, but forgot to remove this code.
Test Plan: Grepped for callsites.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7194
Summary: Ref T603. Clean these up and move them to a single place.
Test Plan:
- Downloaded a raw diff.
- Enabled "attach diffs", created a revision, got an email with a diff.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7179
Summary: Ref T603. Swaps out most `PhabricatorFile` loads for `PhabricatorFileQuery`.
Test Plan:
- Viewed Differential changesets.
- Used `file.info`.
- Used `file.download`.
- Viewed a file.
- Deleted a file.
- Used `/Fnnnn` to access a file.
- Uploaded an image, verified a thumbnail generated.
- Created and edited a macro.
- Added a meme.
- Did old-school attach-a-file-to-a-task.
- Viewed a paste.
- Viewed a mock.
- Embedded a mock.
- Profiled a page.
- Parsed a commit with image files linked to a revision with image files.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7178
Summary: I kind of made a mess of the API doing T2784. I figure just adding this is fine but LMK if you'd prefer something like diffquery got cleaned up more to handle this. Also adds an idx() call as I was getting errors looking at old diffs. Fixes T3823.
Test Plan: used the new api via test console - great success.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3823
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6966
Summary: Ref T603. Killing this class is cool because the classes that replace it are policy-aware. Tried to keep my wits about me as I did this and fixed a few random things along the way. (Ones I remember right now are pulling a query outside of a foreach loop in Releeph and fixing the text in UIExample to note that the ace of hearts if "a powerful" card and not the "most powerful" card (Q of spades gets that honor IMO))
Test Plan: tested the first few changes (execute, executeOne X handle, object) then got real mechanical / careful with the other changes.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, aran, FacebookPOC
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6941
Summary: Ref T2715. Had to start loading status information in the query class. Debated trying to clean up some of the attach / load stuff but decided to just add status under the new paradigm for now.
Test Plan: phid.query also made a status and checked that out. also played in conpherence.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T2715
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6585
Summary:
Fixes T3030. T1977 attempted to fix this but either didn't work (I think this is the case) or was broken later. We don't send `DifferentialCommentMail` on a create or update; we send `DifferentialReviewRequestMail`.
Also update the details to be more clear.
Test Plan:
Verified review request mail is marked undeliverable:
```
$ ./bin/mail show-outbound --id 6644
...
PARAMETERS
...
mailtags: ["differential-review-request"]
...
subject: D922: asdf
subject-prefix: [Differential]
vary-subject-prefix: [Request, 100 lines]
...
RECIPIENTS
! duck (duck)
- This mail has tags which control which users receive it, and this recipient has not elected to receive mail with any of the tags on this message (Settings > Email Preferences).
BODY
epriestley requested code review of "asdf".
...
```
Verified update mail is marked undeliverable:
```
$ ./bin/mail show-outbound --id 6646
...
Message: Message has no valid recipients: all To/Cc are disabled, invalid, or configured not to receive this mail.
PARAMETERS
...
mailtags: ["differential-updated"]
...
subject: D922: asdf
subject-prefix: [Differential]
vary-subject-prefix: [Updated, 100 lines]
...
RECIPIENTS
! duck (duck)
- This mail has tags which control which users receive it, and this recipient has not elected to receive mail with any of the tags on this message (Settings > Email Preferences).
BODY
epriestley updated the revision "asdf".
...
```
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3030
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6518
Summary:
Moves all remaining mail handling into ReplyHandlers.
Farewell, `getPhabricatorToInformation()`! You were a bad method and no one liked you.
Ref T1205.
Test Plan:
- Used test console to send mail to Revisions, Tasks, Conpherences and Commits (these all actually work).
- Used test console to send mail to Requests, Macros, Questions and Mocks (these accept the mail but don't do anything with it, but didn't do anything before either).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5953
Summary: This doesn't do anything, but touches a bunch of files so I split it out to reduce the size of the next diff. Basically, make `MailReceiver` classes responsible for loading their application objects. Ref T1205.
Test Plan: Inspection / next diff / code is not reached.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5941
