Summary:
Depends on D18855. Ref T13036. This comment no longer seems to be accurate: anything we send over `stderr` is faithfully shown to the user with recent clients.
From [[ https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/file/default/mercurial/help/internals/wireprotocol.txt | this document ]], the missing sauce may have been:
```
A generic error response type is also supported. It consists of a an error
message written to ``stderr`` followed by ``\n-\n``. In addition, ``\n`` is
written to ``stdout``.
```
That is, writing "\n" to stdout in addition to writing the error to stderr. However, this no longer appears to be necessary.
I think the modern client behavior is generally sensible (and consistent with the behavior of Git and Subversion) so this //probably// isn't a bug or me making a mistake.
Test Plan: With a modern client, threw some arbitrary exception during execution. Observed a helpful message on the client with no additional steps.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18856
Summary:
Ref T13036. This code attempts to filter the "capabilities" message to remove "bundle2", but I think this has never worked.
Specifically, the //write// pathway is hooked, and "write" here means "client is writing a message to the server". However, the "capabilities" frame is part of the response, not part of the request. Thus, this code never fires, at least on recent versions of Mercurial.
Since I plan to support bundle2 and don't want to decode response frames, just get rid of this, assuming we'll achieve those goals.
I think this was just overlooked in D14241, which probably focused on the HTTP version. This code does (at least, potentially) do something for HTTP.
I'm leaving the actual "strip stuff" code in place for now since I think it's still used on the HTTP pathway.
Test Plan:
- Added debug logging, saw this code never hit even though `hg push --debug` shows the client believing bundle2 is supported.
- Logged both halves of the wire protocol and saw this come from the server, not the client.
- Ran the failing `hg push` of a 4MB file under hg 4.4.1, got the same error as before.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: cspeckmim
Maniphest Tasks: T13036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18855
Summary:
Depends on D18848. Ref PHI243. This puts a bit of logic up front to figure out the blueprint type before we actually start editing it.
This implementation is a little messy but it keeps the API clean. Eventually, the implementation could probably go in the TransactionTypes so more code is shared, but I'd like to wait for a couple more of these first.
This capability probably isn't too useful, but just pays down a bit of technical debt from the caveat introduced in D18822.
Test Plan:
- Created a new blueprint with the API.
- Tried to create a blueprint without a "type" (got a helpful error).
- Created and edited blueprints via the web UI.
- Tried to change the "type" of an existing blueprint (got a helpful error).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18849
Summary:
Depends on D18845. See PHI243 for context and more details.
Briefly, some objects need a "type" transaction (or something similar) very early on, and we can't generate their fields until we know the object type. Drydock blueprints are an example: a blueprint's fields depend on the blueprint's type.
In web interfaces, the workflow just forces the user to select a type first. For Conduit workflows, I think the cleanest approach is to proactively extract and apply type information before processing the request. This will make the implementation a little messier, but the API cleaner.
An alternative is to add more fields to the API, like a "type" field. This makes the implementation cleaner, but the API messier. I think we're better off favoring a cleaner API here.
This change just makes it possible for `DrydockBlueprintEditEngine` to look at the incoming transactions and extract a "type"; it doesn't actually change any behavior.
Test Plan: Performed edits via API, but this change doesn't alter any behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18847
Summary: Ref PHI243. This is a followup to D18822, which added an edit-only `drydock.blueprint.edit`. By modularizing transactions (here) and then adding a "type" transaction (next change) I intend to remove the "edit-only" limitation and make this API method fully functional.
Test Plan: Created and edited blueprints via the web UI. Edited blueprints via the API. Disabled/enabled blueprints (currently web UI only).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18845
Summary:
Fixes T13031. "Enormous" changes are basically changes which are too large to hold in memory, although the actual definition we use today is "more than 1GB of change text or `git diff` runs for more than 15 minutes".
If an install configures a Herald content rule like "when content matches /XYZ/, do something" and then a user pushes a 30 GB source file, we can't put it into memory to `preg_match()` it. Currently, the way to handle this case is to write a separate Herald rule that rejects enormous changes. However, this isn't obvious and means the default behavior is unsafe.
Make the default behavior safe by rejecting these changes with a message, similar to how we reject "dangerous" changes (which permanently delete or overwrite history) by default.
Also, change a couple of UI strings from "Enormous" to "Very Large" to reduce ambiguity. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/herald-enormous-check/822>.
Test Plan: Changed the definition of "enormous" from 1GB to 1 byte. Pushed a change; got rejected. Allowed enormous changes, pushed, got rejected by a Herald rule. Disabled the Herald rule, pushed, got a clean push. Prevented enormous changes again. Grepped for "enormous" elsewhere in the UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: joshuaspence
Maniphest Tasks: T13031
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18850
Summary:
See PHI273. Ref T13020. After D18777, tasks created directly into the default status (which is common) via the web UI no longer write a "status" transaction.
This is consistent with other applications, and consistent with the API/email behavior for tasks since early 2016. It also improves the consistency of //reading// tasks via the API.
However, it impacted the "Burnup Report" which relies on directly reading these rows to detect task creation. Until this is fixed properly (T1562), synthetically generate the "missing" transactions which this page expects by looking at task creation dates instead.
Specifically, we:
- Generate a fake `status: null -> "open"` transaction for every task by looking at the Task table.
- Go through the transaction list and remove all the legacy `status: null -> "any open status"` transactions. These will only exist for older tasks.
- Merge all our new fake transactions into the list of transactions.
- Continue on as though nothing happened, letting the rendering code continue to operate on legacy-looking data.
I think this will slightly miscount tasks which were created directly into a closed status, but this is very rare, and does not significantly impact the accuracy of this report relative to other known issues (notably, merging closed tasks).
This will also get the wrong result if the default status has changed from an "open" status to a "closed" status at any point, but this is exceptionally bizarre/rare.
Ultimately, T1562 will let us delete all this stuff and disavow its existence.
Test Plan:
- Created some tasks, loaded burnup before/after this patch.
- My local chart looks more accurate afterwards, but the data is super weird (I used `bin/lipsum` to create a huge number of tasks a couple months ago). I'll vet this on `secure`, which has more reasonable data.
Here's my local chart:
{F5356499}
That's what it //should// look like, it's just hard to be confident that nothing else is hiding there.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13020
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18853
Summary:
Depends on D18851. Ref T13035. After D18819, revision creation transactions may be split into two groups (if prototypes are enabled).
This split means we have two workers. The first worker doesn't publish feed stories or mail; the second one does.
Currently, both workers call `shouldPublishFeedStory()` before they queue, and then again after the daemons pull them out of the queue. However, the answer to this question can change.
Specifically, this happens:
- `arc` creates a revision.
- The first transaction group applies, creating the revision as a draft, and returns `false` from `shouldPublishFeedStory()`, and does not generate related PHIDs. It queues a daemon to send mail, expecting it not to publish a feed story.
- The second transaction group applies, promoting the revision to "needs review". Since the revision has promoted, `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true. This editor generates related PHIDs and queues a daemon task, expecting it to send mail / publish feed.
- A few milliseconds pass.
- The first job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. It does not have any feed metadata because the object wasn't publishable when the job was queued -- but `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true, so it tries to publish a story without any metadata available. Slightly bad stuff happens (see below).
- The second job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. This one has metadata and works fine.
The "slightly bad stuff" is that we publish an empty feed story with no references to any objects, then try to push it to hooks and other listeners. Since it doesn't have any references, it fails to load during the "push to external listeners" phase.
This is harmless but clutters the log and doesn't help anything.
Instead, cache the state of "are we publishing a feed story for this object?" when we queue the worker so it can't race.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald triggers for Harbormaster build plans.
- Ran `bin/phd debug task` in one window.
- Created a revision in a separate window.
- Before patch: saw "unable to load feed story" errors in the daemon log.
- After patch: no more "unable to load feed story" errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18852
Summary: Ref T13035. See that task for a description of the issue.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald rules that trigger Harbormaster builds.
- Created a new revision.
- Before patch: initial review request email was dropped.
- After patch: initial review request email is sent.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18851
Summary:
See PHI262. Fixes T12578. Although this is a bit niche and probably better accomplished through advisory/soft measures ("Add blocking reviewers") in most cases, it isn't difficult to implement and doesn't create any technical or product tension.
If installs write a rule that blocks commits, that will probably also naturally lead them to an "add reviewers" rule anyway.
Also, allow packages to be hit with the typeahead. They're valid reviewers but previously you couldn't write rules against them, for no actual reason.
Test Plan: Used test console to run this against commits, got sensible results for the field value.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12578
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18839
Summary:
See PHI223. Ref T13024. There's a remaining registration/login order issue after the other changes in T13024: we lose track of the current URI when we go through the MFA flow, so we can lose "Set Password" at the end of the flow.
Specifically, the flow goes like this today:
- User clicks the welcome link in email.
- They get redirected to the "set password" settings panel.
- This gets pre-empted by Legalpad (although we'll potentially survive this with the URI intact).
- This also gets pre-empted by the "Set MFA" workflow. If the user completes this flow, they get redirected to a `/auth/multifactor/?id=123` sort of URI to highlight the factor they added. This causes us to lose the `/settings/panel/password/blah/blah?key=xyz` URI.
The ordering on this is also not ideal; it's preferable to start with a password, then do the other steps, so the user can return to the flow more easily if they are interrupted.
Resolve this by separating the "change your password" and "set/reset your password" flows onto two different pages. This copy/pastes a bit of code, but both flows end up simpler so it feels reasonable to me overall.
We don't require a full session for "set/reset password" (so you can do it if you don't have MFA/legalpad yet) and do it first.
This works better and is broadly simpler for users.
Test Plan:
- Required MFA + legalpad, invited a user via email, registered.
- Before: password set flow got lost when setting MFA.
- After: prompted to set password, then sign documents, then set up MFA.
- Reset password (with MFA confgiured, was required to MFA first).
- Tried to reset password without a valid reset key, wasn't successful.
- Changed password using existing flow.
- Hit various (all?) error cases (short password, common password, mismatch, missing password, etc).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18840
Summary:
Ref PHI261. This moves Harbormaster build status to work more similarly to other modern status types, like Differential revision status, where we try to specify as much behavior on the server as possible so that the client and server can vary independently.
(I don't have any specific plans to make Harbormaster build status configurable on the server side, but it isn't out of the question.)
Test Plan: Ran `harbormaster.querybuilds` (saw same data as before) and `harbormaster.build.search` (saw same data as before, plus new ANSI color data).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18838
Summary: This probably isn't the best solution, however, it conveniently avoids the bug from T13033. It would probably be more user-friendly (but more difficult to implement) if we allowed either Project Details //or// Workboard to be hidden but not both.
Test Plan: Tested locally, indeed this prevents hiding the menu item.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18836
Summary:
Fixes T13033. Currently (prior to D18836) all the default items for projects can be hidden. When this occurs, the main project page fatals.
If we fix the fatal narrowly (don't try to call `null->getBuiltinKey()` when `$default` is `null`), it would 404, which is a little better but not by much.
After D18836 you can't hide "Profile", which is pretty sensible, and effectively fixes this. This change doubles down: let "Manage" be a default, and send the user there if we can't find a different default.
Ideally, the MenuEngine itself will do more rendering eventually (as it does for some of the newer Home stuff) and could handle this defaulting behavior with less special casing, but we'd still end up in a similar situation if a project had only one "Link" item to "coolcats.com" or something: redirecting the user to "coolcats.com" is probably better than fataling, but not by a huge margin, and not likely to be what they expect.
Test Plan:
Before D18836, disabled both "Profile" and "Workboard" items on a project. Visited project page.
Before patch: fatal. After patch: manage page.
After D18836, you can't do this and just get the profile, so this is sort of moot and mostly future-proofing/for-completeness.
Reviewers: 20after4, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13033
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18843
Summary: Events with no attendees (e.g. fresh instances of recurring events) would trigger an exception when sending notifications, because `$attendee_map` would still get populated.
Test Plan: Declined event, restarted daemons. Did not see exception. Accepted event, restarted daemons. Saw "[Calendar] [Reminder]" email.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18835
Summary:
We have one production instance with failing database backups since they recently uploaded a 52MB hunk. The production configuration specifies a 64MB "max_allowed_packet" in `[mysqld]`, but this doesn't apply to `mysqldump` (we'd need to specify it in a separate `[mysqldump]` section) and `mysqldump` runs with an effective limit of the default (16MB).
We could change our production config to specify a value in `[mysqldump]`, but just change it unconditionally at execution time since there's no reason for any user to ever want this command to fail because they have too much data.
Test Plan: Dumped locally, will verify production backup goes through cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18834
Summary: Ref T13030. See PHI254. This behavior could be cleaner than I've made it, but it fixes the "this is totally broken" issue, replacing a fatal/exception with an informative (just not terribly useful) page.
Test Plan:
- Added a submodule to a repository.
- In Diffusion, clicked some other file next to the submodule, then edited the URI to the submodule path instead.
- Before patch: fatal.
- After patch: relatively useful message about this being a submodule.
Note that it's normally hard to hit this URI directly. In the browse view, submodules are marked up as directories and linked to a separate submodule resolution flow.
{F5321524}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13030
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18831
Summary:
See PHI230. Currently, we denormalize raw line counts onto diffs and revisions, but not added/removed line counts.
I'd like to try a `[---+ ]` sort of size hint element (see D16322 for more) as a general approach to conveying size information at a glance and see how it feels, since I think the raw size number isn't very scannable/useful and it may be a significant improvement to hint about how much of a change is throwing stuff out vs adding new stuff.
This just makes the data available without any subquerying and doesn't actually change the UI.
Test Plan:
Created a revision, saw detailed change information populate in the database.
```
mysql> select * from differential_revision where id = 292\G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
id: 292
title: WIP
originalTitle: WIP
phid: PHID-DREV-ux3cxptibn3l5pxsug3z
status: draft
summary: asdf
testPlan: asdf
authorPHID: PHID-USER-cvfydnwadpdj7vdon36z
lastReviewerPHID: NULL
lineCount: 41
dateCreated: 1513179418
dateModified: 1513179418
attached: []
mailKey: h4mn6perdio47o4beomyvu75zezwvredx3mbrlgz
branchName: NULL
viewPolicy: users
editPolicy: users
repositoryPHID: PHID-REPO-wif5lutk5gn3y6ursk4p
properties: {"lines.added":40,"lines.removed":1}
activeDiffPHID: PHID-DIFF-ixjphpunpkenqgukpmce
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
```
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18832
Summary:
Depends on D18828. Ref T7789. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/git-lfs-fails-with-large-images/584>.
Currently, when you upload a large (>4MB) image, we may try to assess the dimensions for the image and for each individual chunk.
At best, this is slow and not useful. At worst, it fatals or consumes a ton of memory and I/O we don't need to be using.
Instead:
- Don't try to assess dimensions for chunked files.
- Don't try to assess dimensions for the chunks themselves.
- Squelch errors for bad data, etc., that `gd` can't actually read, since we recover sensibly.
Test Plan:
- Created a 2048x2048 PNG in Photoshop using the "Random Noise" filter which weighs 8.5MB.
- Uploaded it.
- Before patch: got complaints in log about `imagecreatefromstring()` failing, although the actual upload went OK in my environment.
- After patch: clean log, no attempt to detect the size of a big image.
- Also uploaded a small image, got dimensions detected properly still.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7789
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18830
Summary: Depends on D18827. Ref T7789. See PHI204. See PHI131. This button got accidentally removed in Diffusion refactoring (`$data` is no longer used).
Test Plan: {F5321459}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7789
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18828
Summary: See PHI131. Ref T7789. Although this probably isn't 100% complete, there don't seem to be any actual, known, practical blocking issues remaining (everything is either heresay or not reproducible).
Test Plan: Tried to push LFS locally, got blocked with a helpful message. Enabled setting, tried to push LFS locally, got a successful push.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7789
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18825
Summary:
See PHI242. All use cases for this that I know of are pretty hacky, but they don't seem perilous, and it's easier than webhooks.
See P1895, T10183, and T9853 for me previously refusing to implement this since all those use cases were also pretty bad.
Test Plan:
- Wrote a rule to add comments, saw it add comments.
- Reviewed summary, re-edited rule, reviewed transcript to check that all the strings worked OK.
- Wrote a new rule for a non-commentable object (a blog) to make sure I wasn't offered the "Add a comment" action.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18823
Summary:
Ref: https://admin.phacility.com/PHI243
Since our use case primarily focuses on transaction editing, this patch implements the `drydock.blueprint.edit` api method with the understanding that:
a) this is a work in progress
b) object editing is supported, but object creation is not yet implemented
Test Plan:
* updated existing blueprints via Conduit UI
* regression tested `maniphest.edit` by creating new and updating existing tasks
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, yelirekim, jcox
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18822
Summary:
Fixes T13027. Ref T2543. When revisions promote from "Draft" because builds finish or no builds are configured, the status currently switches from "Draft" to "Needs Review" without re-running Herald.
This means that some rules -- notably, "Send me an email" rules -- don't fire as soon as they should.
Instead of applying this promotion in a hacky way inline, queue it and apply it normally in a second edit, after the current group finishes.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision, reviewed Herald transcripts.
- Saw three Herald passes:
- First pass (revision creation) triggered builds and no email.
- Second pass (builds finished) did not trigger builds (no update) and did not trigger email (revision still a draft).
- Third pass (after promotion out of 'draft') did not trigger builds (no update) but did trigger email (revision no longer a draft).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13027, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18819
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/activation-link-in-welcome-mail-only-works-if-new-user-isnt-semi-logged-in/740/7>.
In T13024, I rewrote the main menu bar to hide potentially sensitive items (like notification and message counts and saved search filters) until users fully log in.
However, the "Log In" item got caught in this too. For clarity, rename `shouldAllowPartialSessions()` to `shouldRequireFullSession()` (since logged-out users don't have any session at all, so it would be a bit misleading to say that "Log In" "allows" a partial session). Then let "Log In" work again for logged-out users.
(In most cases, users are prompted to log in when they take an action which requires them to be logged in -- like creating or editing an object, or adding comments -- so this item doesn't really need to exist. However, it aligns better with user expectations in many cases to have it present, and some reasonable operations like "Check if I have notifications/messages" don't have an obvious thing to click otherwise.)
Test Plan: Viewed site in an incognito window, saw "Log In" button again. Browsed normally, saw normal menu.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18818
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/diffusion-observed-mercurial-repository-history-broken/825>.
In D18769, I rewrote this from using the `--branch` flag (which is unsafe and does not function on branches named `--config=x.y` and such).
However, this rewrite accidentally changed the result order, which impacted Mercurial commit hisotry lists and graphs. Swap the order of the constraints so we get newest-to-oldest again, as expected.
Test Plan: Viewed a Mercurial repository's history graph, saw sensible chronology after the patch.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18817
Summary: Ref T13001, URLs that return multiple commits should show a list of those commits. Not sure if the actual list looks very pretty this way, but was wondering if this approach was vaguely correct.
Test Plan:
- Navigate to `install/rPbd3c23`
- User should see a list view providing links to `install/rPbd3c2355e8e2b220ae5e3cbfe4a057c8088c6a38` and `install/rPbd3c239d5aada68a31db5742bbb8ec099074a561`
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T13001
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18816
See PHI238. When an install uninstalls "Legalpad", we were incorrectly failing
to mark sessions as "Signed All Required Documents" by bailing early.
Test Plan: Uninstalled Legalpad, logged in.
Summary: Ref T13019, adds build status back to Diffusion commits
Test Plan: Open a Diffusion commit that has a build status, property list view should show the build status, but not Subscriptions, Projects, or Tokens.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T13019
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18813
Summary: See PHI234. In T12931 we improved the behavior of Diffusion when a repository's default branch is set to a branch that does not exist, but in T11823 the way refcursors work changed, and we can now get a cursor (just with no positions) back for a deleted branch. When we did, we didn't handle things gracefully.
Test Plan:
- Set default branch to a deleted branch, saw nice error instead of fatal.
- Set default branch to a nonexistent branch which never existed, saw nice error.
- Set default branch to existing "master", saw repository normally.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18811
Summary:
See PHI234. Several issues here:
- The warning about observing a repository in Read/Write mode checks the raw I/O type, not the effective I/O type. That means we can fail to warn if other URIs are set to "Default", and "Default" is "Read/Write" in practice.
- There's just an actual typo which prevents the "Observe" version of this error from triggering properly.
Additionally, add more forceful warnings that "Observe" and "Mirror" mean that you want to //replace// a repository with another one, not that we somehow merge branches selectively. It isn't necessarily obvious that "Observe" doesn't mean "merge/union", since the reasons it can't in the general case are somewhat subtle (conflicts between refs with the same names, detecting ref deletion).
Test Plan:
Read documentation. Hit the error locally by trying to "Observe" while in Read/Write mode:
{F5302655}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18810
Summary:
Ref T10405. If `gd` is not installed, a number of unit tests currently fail because they generate synthetic users and try to composite profile pictures for them.
Instead, just fall back to a static default if `gd` is not available.
Test Plan: Faked this pathway, created a new user, saw a default profile picture.
Reviewers: amckinley, lpriestley, avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T10405
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18812
Summary:
Ref T10233. See PHI231. When users ignore the `arc land` prompt about bad revision states, make it explicitly clear in the transaction log that they broke the rules.
You can currently figure this out by noticing that there's no "This revision is accepted and ready to land." message, but it's unrealistic to expect non-expert users to look for the //absence// of a message to indicate something, and this state change is often relevant.
Test Plan: {F5302351}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10233
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18808
Summary:
Use ClassQuery to find datasources for the quick-search.
Mostly, this allows extensions to add quicksearches.
Test Plan:
using `/typeahead/class/`, tested several search terms that make sense.
Removed the tag interface from a datasource, which removed it from results.
Reviewers: epriestley, amckinley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18760
Summary:
Depends on D18801. Ref T2543. See PHI229. I missed "Accept" before, but intended to disallow it (like "Reject") since I don't want drafts to be reviewable.
However, "Resign" seems fine to allow? So let's allow that for now.
Test Plan: Was no longer offered "Accept" on draft revisions.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18802
Summary:
See PHI228. Ref T2543. The current logic gets this slightly wrong: prototypes are off, you create a draft with `--draft`, then promote it with "Request Review". This misses both branches.
Instead, test these conditions a little more broadly. We also need to store broadcast state since `getIsNewObject()` isn't good enough with this workflow.
Test Plan:
- With prototypes on and autopromotion, got a rich email after builds finished.
- With prototypes off, got a rich email immediately.
- With prototypes off and `--draft`, got a rich email after "Request Review".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18801
Summary:
See PHI173. Adds custom field support for Herald actions, and implements actions for "Datasource/Tokenizer" fields.
The only action available for now is "set field to...". Other actions ("Add values", "Remove values") might make sense in the future for these fields, but there's currently no use case. For most other field types (text, select, checkbox, etc) only "Set to" makes sense.
Test Plan:
- Added a "datasource" custom field to the custom field definition in Config.
- Added a "if field is empty, set field to default value X" rule to Herald.
- Created a task with a nonempty field: no Herald trigger.
- Created a task with an empty field: Herald fired.
- Reviewed rule and transcripts for text strings.
{F5297615}
{F5297616}
{F5297617}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18784
Summary:
Depends on D18792. Fixes T13024. Fixes T89198. Currently, when users are logging in initially (for example, need to enter MFA) we show more menu items than we should.
Notably, we may show some personalized/private account details, like the number of unread notifications (probably not relevant) or a user's saved queries (possibly sensitive). At best these are misleading (they won't work yet) and there's an outside possibility they leak a little bit of private data.
Instead, nuke everything except "Log Out" when users have partial sessions.
Test Plan:
Hit a partial session (MFA required, email verification required) and looked at the menu. Only saw "Log Out".
{F5297713}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18793
Summary: Depends on D18791. Ref T13024. This clears up another initialization order issue, where an unverified address could prevent MFA enrollment.
Test Plan: Configured both verification required and MFA required, clicked "Add Factor", got a dialog for the workflow.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18792
Summary:
Depends on D18790. Ref T13024. Fixes T8335. Currently, "unapproved" and "disabled" users are bundled together. This prevents users from completing some registration steps (verification, legalpad documents, MFA enrollment) before approval.
Separate approval out and move it to the end so users can do all the required enrollment stuff on their end before we roadblock them.
Test Plan: Required approval, email verification, signatures, and MFA. Registered an account. Verified email, signed documents, enrolled in MFA, and then got prompted to wait for approval.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024, T8335
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18791
Summary:
Depends on D18789. Ref T13024. See PHI223. Currently, if `security.require-multi-factor-auth` and Legalpad "Signature Required" documents are //both// set, it's not possible to survive account registration, since MFA is requiried to sign and signatures are required to add MFA.
Instead, check for signatures before requiring MFA enrollment. This makes logical sense, since it's silly to add MFA if you don't agree to a Terms of Service or whatever.
(Note that if you already have MFA, we prompt for that first, before either of these steps, which also makes sense.)
Test Plan: Configured `security.require-multi-factor-auth`. Added a signature-required document. Loaded a page as a new user. Went through signature workflow, then through the MFA enrollment workflow.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18790
Summary: Depends on D18788. Ref T13024. Currently, we prompt users to sign from newest to oldest. This seems less intuitive than oldest to newest.
Test Plan: Dumped document order, saw it swap to oldest-first.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18789
Summary: Depends on D18786. Ref T13024. I'm going to change the order this occurs in, but move it to a separate method and clean it up a little first.
Test Plan: Added a new document as required, reloaded, signed it, got logged into a session.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18788
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:
See PHI225. Previously, see D15335 / T10413. On workboards, we hide archived project tags since they aren't terribly useful in that context, at least most of the time. Originally, see T10349#159916 and D15297.
However, hovercards reuse this display logic, and it's inconsistent/confusing to hide them there, since the actual "Tags" elements on task pages show them. Narrow the scope of this rule.
Test Plan:
- Viewed a hovercard for a task with an archived project tagged, saw archived project.
- Viewed a workboard for the same task, saw only unarchived projects other than the current board tagged (this behavior is unchanged).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18783
Summary:
Ref T13018. See that task and the Discourse thread for discussion.
This doesn't work as-is and we need to `og:description` everything to make it work. I don't want to sink any more time into this so just back all the changes out for now.
(The `<html>` change is unnecessary anyway.)
Test Plan: Strict revert.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13018
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18782
