Summary:
Fixes T7961. Currently, we present Herald users with actions like "Require legalpad signatures" and "Run build plans" even if Legalpad and Harbormaster are not installed.
Instead, allow fields and actions to be made "unavailable", which means that we won't present them as options when adding to new or existing rules.
If you edit a rule which already uses one of these fields or actions, it isn't affected.
Test Plan:
- Created a rule with a legalpad action, uninstalled legalpad, edited the rule. Action remained untouched.
- Created a new rule, wasn't offered the legalpad action.
- Reinstalled the application, saw the action again.
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T7961
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20808
Summary:
When a TOS-like Legalpad document is marked "Require this document to use Phabricator", the login prompt shows a "Manage" button, but that button doesn't work.
When we're presenting a document as a session gate, don't show "Manage".
Test Plan: Viewed a required document during a session gate (no "Manage" button) and normally (saw "Manage" button).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20312
Summary:
See downstream <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208254>.
I can't actually reproduce any issue here (we only show this field when creating a document, and only if the viewer is an administrator), so maybe this relied on some changes or was originally reported against older code.
Regardless, the validation isn't quite right: it requires administrator privileges to apply this transaction at all, but should only require administrator privileges to change the value.
Test Plan:
Edited Legalpad documents as an administrator and non-administrator before and after the change, with and without signatures being required.
Couldn't reproduce the original issue, but this version is generally more correct/robust.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20311
Summary:
Depends on D20107. Ref T6703. Legalpad currently inserts "email" records into the external account table, but they're never used for anything and nothing else references them.
They also aren't necessary for anything important to work, and the only effect they have is making the UI say "External Account" instead of "None" under the "Account" column. In particular, the signatures still record the actual email address.
Stop doing this, remove all the references, and destroy all the rows.
(Long ago, Maniphest may also have done this, but no longer does. Nuance/Gatekeeper use a more modern and more suitable "ExternalObject" thing that I initially started adapting here before realizing that Legalpad doesn't actually care about this data.)
Test Plan: Signed documents with an email address, saw signature reflected properly in UI. Grepped for other callsites.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T6703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20108
Summary:
In ~2012, the first of these options was added because someone who hates dogs and works at Asana also hated `[Differential]` in the subject line. The use case there was actually //removing// the text, not changing it, but I made the prefix editable since it seemed like slightly less of a one-off.
These options are among the dumbest and most useless config options we have and very rarely used, see T11760. A very small number of instances have configured one of these options.
Newer applications stopped providing these options and no one has complained.
You can get the same effect with `translation.override`. Although I'm not sure we'll keep that around forever, it's a reasonable replacement today. I'll call out an example in the changelog to help installs that want to preserve this option.
If we did want to provide this, it should just be in {nav Applications > Settings} for each application, but I think it's wildly-low-value and "hack via translations" or "local patch" are entirely reasonable if you really want to change these strings.
Test Plan: Grepped for `subject-prefix`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19993
Summary:
Fixes T7477. Fixes T13066. Currently, inbound mail is processed by the first receiver that matches any "To:" address. "Cc" addresses are ignored.
**To, CC, and Multiple Receivers**
Some users would like to be able to "Cc" addresses like `bugs@` instead of having to "To" the address, which makes perfect sense. That's the driving use case behind T7477.
Since users can To/Cc multiple "create object" or "update object" addresses, I also wanted to make the behavior more general. For example, if you email `bugs@` and also `paste@`, your mail might reasonably make both a Task and a Paste. Is this useful? I'm not sure. But it seems like it's pretty clearly the best match for user intent, and the least-surprising behavior we can have. There's also no good rule for picking which address "wins" when two or more match -- we ended up with "address order", which is pretty arbitrary since "To" and "Cc" are not really ordered fields.
One part of this change is removing `phabricator.allow-email-users`. In practice, this option only controlled whether users were allowed to send mail to "Application Email" addresses with a configured default author, and it's unlikely that we'll expand it since I think the future of external/grey users is Nuance, not richer interaction with Maniphest/Differential/etc. Since this option only made "Default Author" work and "Default Author" is optional, we can simplify behavior by making the rule work like this:
- If an address specifies a default author, it allows public email.
- If an address does not, it doesn't.
That's basically how it worked already, except that you could intentionally "break" the behavior by not configuring `phabricator.allow-email-users`. This is a backwards compatility change with possible security implications (it might allow email in that was previously blocked by configuration) that I'll call out in the changelog, but I suspect that no installs are really impacted and this new behavior is generally more intuitive.
A somewhat related change here is that each receiver is allowed to react to each individual email address, instead of firing once. This allows you to configure `bugs-a@` and `bugs-b@` and CC them both and get two tasks. Useful? Maybe not, but seems like the best execution of intent.
**Sender vs Author**
Adjacently, T13066 described an improvement to error handling behavior here: we did not distinguish between "sender" (the user matching the email "From" address) and "actor" (the user we're actually acting as in the application). These are different when you're some internet rando and send to `bugs@`, which has a default author. Then the "sender" is `null` and the "author" is `@bugs-robot` or whatever (some user account you've configured).
This refines "Sender" vs "Author". This is mostly a purity/correctness change, but it means that we won't send random email error messages to `@bugs-robot`.
Since receivers are now allowed to process mail with no "sender" if they have some default "actor" they would rather use instead, it's not an error to send from an invalid address unless nothing processes the mail.
**Other**
This removes the "abundant receivers" error since this is no longer an error.
This always sets "external user" mail recipients to be unverified. As far as I can tell, there's no pathway by which we send them email anyway (before or after this change), although it's possible I'm missing something somewhere.
Test Plan:
I did most of this with `bin/mail receive-test`. I rigged the workflow slightly for some of it since it doesn't support multiple addresses or explicit "CC" and adding either would be a bit tricky.
These could also be tested with `scripts/mail/mail_handler.php`, but I don't currently have the MIME parser extension installed locally after a recent upgrade to Mojave and suspect T13232 makes it tricky to install.
- Ran unit tests, which provide significant coverage of this flow.
- Sent mail to multiple Maniphest application emails, got multiple tasks.
- Sent mail to a Maniphest and a Paste application email, got a task and a paste.
- Sent mail to a task.
- Saw original email recorded on tasks. This is a behavior particular to tasks.
- Sent mail to a paste.
- Sent mail to a mock.
- Sent mail to a Phame blog post.
- Sent mail to a Legalpad document.
- Sent mail to a Conpherence thread.
- Sent mail to a poll.
- This isn't every type of supported object but it's enough of them that I'm pretty confident I didn't break the whole flow.
- Sent mail to an object I could not view (got an error).
- As a non-user, sent mail to several "create an object..." addresses.
- Addresses with a default user worked (e.g., created a task).
- Addresses without a default user did not work.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13066, T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19952
Summary:
Depends on D19919. Ref T11351. This method appeared in D8802 (note that "get...Object" was renamed to "get...Transaction" there, so this method was actually "new" even though a method of the same name had existed before).
The goal at the time was to let Harbormaster post build results to Diffs and have them end up on Revisions, but this eventually got a better implementation (see below) where the Harbormaster-specific code can just specify a "publishable object" where build results should go.
The new `get...Object` semantics ultimately broke some stuff, and the actual implementation in Differential was removed in D10911, so this method hasn't really served a purpose since December 2014. I think that broke the Harbormaster thing by accident and we just lived with it for a bit, then Harbormaster got some more work and D17139 introduced "publishable" objects which was a better approach. This was later refined by D19281.
So: the original problem (sending build results to the right place) has a good solution now, this method hasn't done anything for 4 years, and it was probably a bad idea in the first place since it's pretty weird/surprising/fragile.
Note that `Comment` objects still have an unrelated method with the same name. In that case, the method ties the `Comment` storage object to the related `Transaction` storage object.
Test Plan: Grepped for `getApplicationTransactionObject`, verified that all remaining callsites are related to `Comment` objects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19920
Summary:
Depends on D19918. Ref T11351. In D19918, I removed all calls to this method. Now, remove all implementations.
All of these implementations just `return $timeline`, only the three sites in D19918 did anything interesting.
Test Plan: Used `grep willRenderTimeline` to find callsites, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19919
Summary:
Depends on D19914. Ref T11351. Some of the Phoilo rabbit holes go very deep.
`PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface` currently requires you to implement `willRenderTimeline()`. Almost every object just implements this as `return $timeline`; only Pholio, Diffusion, and Differential specialize it. In all cases, they are specializing it mostly to render inline comments.
The actual implementations are a bit of a weird mess and the way the data is threaded through the call stack is weird and not very modern.
Try to clean this up:
- Stop requiring `willRenderTimeline()` to be implemented.
- Stop requiring `getApplicationTransactionViewObject()` to be implemented (only the three above, plus Legalpad, implement this, and Legalpad's implementation is a no-op). These two methods are inherently pretty coupled for almost any reasonable thing you might want to do with the timeline.
- Simplify the handling of "renderdata" and call it "View Data". This is additional information about the current view of the transaction timeline that is required to render it correctly. This is only used in Differential, to decide if we can link an inline comment to an anchor on the same page or should link it to another page. We could perhaps do this on the client instead, but having this data doesn't seem inherently bad to me.
- If objects want to customize timeline rendering, they now implement `PhabricatorTimelineInterface` and provide a `TimelineEngine` which gets a nice formal stack.
This leaves a lot of empty `willRenderTimeline()` implementations hanging around. I'll remove these in the next change, it's just going to be deleting a couple dozen copies of an identical empty method implementation.
Test Plan:
- Viewed audits, revisions, and mocks with inline comments.
- Used "Show Older" to page a revision back in history (this is relevant for "View Data").
- Grepped for symbols: willRenderTimeline, getApplicationTransactionViewObject, Legalpad classes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19918
Summary: Depends on D19895. Ref T13222. This is a simple behavioral improvement for the current MFA implementation in Legalpad: don't MFA the user and //then// realize that they forgot to actually check the box.
Test Plan:
- Submitted form without the box checked, got an error saying "check the box" instead of MFA.
- Submitted the form with the box checked, got an MFA prompt.
- Passed the MFA gate, got a signed form.
- Tried to sign another form, hit MFA timed lockout.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19896
Summary:
Depends on D19888. Ref T13222. When we issue an MFA challenge, prevent the user from responding to it in the context of a different workflow: if you ask for MFA to do something minor (award a token) you can't use the same challenge to do something more serious (launch nukes).
This defuses highly-hypothetical attacks where the attacker:
- already controls the user's session (since the challenge is already bound to the session); and
- can observe MFA codes.
One version of this attack is the "spill coffee on the victim when the code is shown on their phone, then grab their phone" attack. This whole vector really strains the bounds of plausibility, but it's easy to lock challenges to a workflow and it's possible that there's some more clever version of the "spill coffee" attack available to more sophisticated social engineers or with future MFA factors which we don't yet support.
The "spill coffee" attack, in detail, is:
- Go over to the victim's desk.
- Ask them to do something safe and nonsuspicious that requires MFA (sign `L123 Best Friendship Agreement`).
- When they unlock their phone, spill coffee all over them.
- Urge them to go to the bathroom to clean up immediately, leaving their phone and computer in your custody.
- Type the MFA code shown on the phone into a dangerous MFA prompt (sign `L345 Eternal Declaration of War`).
- When they return, they may not suspect anything (it would be normal for the MFA token to have expired), or you can spill more coffee on their computer now to destroy it, and blame it on the earlier spill.
Test Plan:
- Triggered signatures for two different documents.
- Got prompted in one, got a "wait" in the other.
- Backed out of the good prompt, returned, still prompted.
- Answered the good prompt.
- Waited for the bad prompt to expire.
- Went through the bad prompt again, got an actual prompt this time.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19889
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Currently, when applications prompt users to enter MFA, their session upgrades as a side effect.
In some cases (like managing your email addresses) it makes sense to upgrade your session for a little while since it's common to make multiple edits in sequence (add a new address, make it primary, remove an old address). We generally want MFA to stay out of the way and not feel annoying.
In other cases, we don't expect multiple high-security actions in a row. Notably, PHI873 looks at more "one-shot" use cases where a prompt is answering a specific workflow. We already have at least one of these in the upstream: answering an MFA prompt when signing a Legalpad document.
Introduce a "token" workflow (in contrast to the existing "session") workflow that just does a one-shot prompt without upgrading your session statefully. Then, make Legalpad use this new workflow.
Note that this workflow has a significant problem: if the form submission is invalid for some other reason, we re-prompt you on resubmit. In Legalpad, this workflow looks like:
- Forget to check the "I agree" checkbox.
- Submit the form.
- Get prompted for MFA.
- Answer MFA prompt.
- Get dumped back to the form with an error.
- When you fix the error and submit again, you have to do another MFA check.
This isn't a fatal flaw in Legalpad, but would become a problem with wider adoption. I'll work on fixing this (so the MFA token sticks to the form) in the next set of changes.
Roughly, this is headed toward "MFA sticks to the form/workflow" instead of "MFA sticks to the user/session".
Test Plan:
- Signed a legalpad document with MFA enabled.
- Was prompted for MFA.
- Session no longer upgraded (no purple "session in high security" badge).
- Submitted form with error, answered MFA, fixed error, submitted form again.
- Bad behavior: got re-prompted for MFA. In the future, MFA should stick to the form.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19843
Summary: Depends on D19785. Ref T13217. This converts many of the most common clause construction pathways to the new %Q / %LQ / %LO / %LA / %LJ semantics.
Test Plan: Browsed around a bunch, saw fewer warnings and no obvious behavioral errors. The transformations here are generally mechanical (although I did them by hand).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T13217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19789
Summary: Ref T13077. There is no "PHUIDocumentView" so toss the "Pro" suffix from this classname.
Test Plan: Grepped for `PHUIDocumentView` and `PHUIDocumentViewPro`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19616
Summary:
Depends on D19009. Ref T13053. For "Must Encrypt" mail, we must currently strip the "Thread-Topic" header because it sometimes contains sensitive information about the object.
I don't actually know if this header is useful or anyting uses it. My understanding is that it's an Outlook/Exchange thing, but we also implement "Thread-Index" which I think is what Outlook/Exchange actually look at. This header may have done something before we implemented "Thread-Index", or maybe never done anything. Or maybe older versions of Excel/Outlook did something with it and newer versions don't, or do less. So it's possible that an even better fix here would be to simply remove this, but I wasn't able to convince myself of that after Googling for 10 minutes and I don't think it's worth hours of installing Exchange/Outlook to figure out. Instead, I'm just trying to simplify our handling of this header for now, and maybe some day we'll learn more about Exchange/Outlook and can remove it.
In a number of cases we already use the object monogram or PHID as a "Thread-Topic" without users ever complaining, so I think that if this header is useful it probably isn't shown to users, or isn't shown very often (e.g., only in a specific "conversation" sub-view?). Just use the object PHID (which should be unique and stable) as a thread-topic, everywhere, automatically.
Then allow this header through for "Must Encrypt" mail.
Test Plan: Processed some local mail, saw object PHIDs for "Thread-Topic" headers.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19012
Summary: Depends on D18785. Ref T13024. While I'm in here, update this a bit to use the newer stuff.
Test Plan: Searched for Legalpad documents, saw more modern support (subscribers, order by, viewer()).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18786
Summary: Ref T13024. Updates LegalpadDocumentQuery to use slightly more modern constructions.
Test Plan: Queried for Legalpad documents, got the same results.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18785
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary: Updates Legalpad to use EditEngine, paving the way for //transaction comments//. Spooky.
Test Plan:
- New Document
- Require signing, Corp - see fail
- Require signing, Noone - see fail
- Require signing, Ind - get asked to sign
- Edit Document
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17862
Summary: Update Legalpad for modular transactions
Test Plan:
- New Document (no sign)
- New Document (individual)
- New Document (corp)
- Require Signature - get prompted to sign before I can do anything.
- Edit Documents
- Sign Documents
- Comment on Documents
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17826
Summary:
Ref T12509. Many of the calls to HMAC+SHA1 are just to compute cachekeys for remarkup objects.
Make these use HMAC+SHA256 instead. There is no downside to swapping these since they just cause a cache miss in the worst case.
I also plan to get rid of `PhabricatorMarkupInterface` eventually, but this doesn't go that far.
Test Plan: Browsed some different types of documents (tasks, legalpad documents, phame blogs / posts, pholio mocks, etc).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17631
Summary:
This has been replaced by `PolicyCodex` after D16830. Also:
- Rebuild Celerity map to fix grumpy unit test.
- Fix one issue on the policy exception workflow to accommodate the new code.
Test Plan:
- `arc unit --everything`
- Viewed policy explanations.
- Viewed policy errors.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16831
Summary: Going to render these all normal case instead of all caps, and bump up the font size. Should be more consistent. Yellow if you green anything orange.
Test Plan: grep, lint
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15645
Summary: Missed converting this page, scenario. The box was poorly formatted.
Test Plan: Create a new document that needs signed, verify box is correctly spaced and colored.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15591
Summary: Updates Legalpad Manage/Edit with new UI layouts.
Test Plan: Wrote a new document with and without a preamble, edit document, sign document
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15576
Summary:
Every caller returns `true`. This was added a long time ago for Projects, but projects are no longer subscribable.
I don't anticipate needing this in the future.
Test Plan: Grepped for this method.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15409
Summary: Moves all the one off object calls to PHUIRemarkupView, adds a "Document" call as well (future plans).
Test Plan: Visited most pages I could get access to, but may want extra careful eyes on this diff.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15281
Summary: Mostly for consistency, we're not using other forms of icons and this makes all classes that use an icon call it in the same way.
Test Plan: tested uiexamples, lots of other random pages.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15125
Summary:
Ref T6183. Ref T10054. Historically, only members could watch projects because there were some weird special cases with policies. These policy issues have been resolved and Herald is generally powerful enough to do equivalent watches on most objects anyway.
Also puts a "Watch Project" button on the feed panel to make the behavior and meaning more obvious.
Test Plan:
- Watched a project I was not a member of.
- Clicked the feed watch/unwatch button.
{F1064909}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6183, T10054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15063
Summary: Ref T10032, adds "Basic" NUX to more applications.
Test Plan: Visit each with ?nux=true and click on the create link. T10032 is tracking which apps need general modernization to pick up these changes.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10032
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14847
Summary:
Ref T10004. After D14804, we get this behavior by default and no longer need to set it explicitly.
(If some endpoint did eventually need to set it explicitly, it could just change what it passes to `setHref()`, but I believe we currently have no such endpoints and do not foresee ever having any.)
Test Plan:
- As a logged out user, clicked various links in Differential, Maniphest, Files, etc., always got redirected to a sensible place after login.
- Grepped for `setObjectURI()`, `getObjectURI()` (there are a few remaining callsites, but to a different method with the same name in Doorkeeper).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14805
Summary: This makes document views a little more automatic, and a little more style to the page. The Document itself remains on a pure white centered background, but footer and preceeding objects go back to the original body color. This provides a bit more depth and separation over content and definitions/comments.
Test Plan:
Tested Phriction, Diviner, Legalpad, Phame, Email Commands, HTTP Commands, with and without a footer.
{F1005853}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14582
Summary: Moves to showing Legalpad previews using PHUIDocumentViewPro
Test Plan: Create a new document, edit an existing document
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14550
Summary: Move some `PhabricatorPolicyRule` implementations to a subdirectory of the parent application.
Test Plan: N/A
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14478
Summary: Rolls out PHUIDocumentViewPro to Legalpad. Minor tweaks to provide space around Preamble and Signature blocks. Otherwise, straight forward.
Test Plan:
Build a new document with and without Preamble, sign document.
{F933386}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14377
Summary: You can already pass other icons, but this makes it a bit simpler.
Test Plan: Test Maniphest, Badges
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14131
Summary:
Fixes T9245. These picked up some possibly-confusing metadata, like in the screenshot on T9245 where "Subscribers" appears in the middle of the page for no obvious reason.
- Make these pages a little cleaner by removing elements which aren't important for signing agreements.
- Use the last time the actual document text was updated as the modification time, not the last time the "Document" object was modified. The latter will change for trivial things like altering the view/edit policy, but that could be confusing if you see that a TOS was "last updated yesterday" but can't figure out what actually changed (since nothing changed).
Test Plan: Viewed signature page for a document.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9245
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13982
