Summary:
Ref T2222. Differential has certain "words of power" (like `Ref T123` or `Depends on D345`) which should expand into a separate transaction when they appear anywhere in text.
Currently, they're respected in only some fields. I'm expanding them to work in any remarkup field, including comments and inline comments.
This partially generalizes transaction expansion/extraction in comments. Eventually, I'll probably implement some very soft sort of reference edge for T4036, maybe.
Test Plan: {F119368}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8369
Summary: Ref T2222. This should help new mail thread properly with old mail.
Test Plan: Will push.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8367
Summary: Ref T2222. This will probabaly have a few rough edges too, but seems to work well.
Test Plan:
- Made a bunch of comments while building this.
- Made some new comments.
- Verified that the Asana/JIRA integration is only a little bit janky, not completely broken.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8362
Summary: Ref T2222. Ref T3886. Differential has a legacy storage table for auxiliary fields; move the data to modern storage.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration.
- Verified fields still worked properly afterward (view, edit, etc).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3886, T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8355
Summary: Ref T2222. This enriches mail a little bit to get these rendering pretty much like they do now.
Test Plan: {F118255}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8343
Summary:
Ref T2222. This requires one new trick:
- When merging edge transactions which both add/update an edge, the Editor gets to control how the edge data is merged.
Specifically, we pick the "strongest" state to keep, so "accept + comment" leaves you with an accept instead of a comment.
Test Plan: Accepted, commented on, and comment + accepted revisions. Added some debugging dumps to verify that the merging was getting hit and working correctly.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8340
Summary:
Ref T2222. This doesn't feel super clean, but doesn't feel too bad either.
Basically, Differential transactions can have secondary state-based effects (changing the overall revision status) when reviewers resign, are removed, accept, or reject revisions.
To deal with this in ApplicationTransactions, I did this:
- `applyFinalEffects()` can now alter the transaction set (notably, add new ones). This mostly matters for email, notifications and feed.
- In Differential, check for an overall revision state transition in `applyFinalEffects()` (e.g., your reject moving the revision to a rejected state).
- I'm only writing the transaction if the transition is implied and indirect.
- For example, if you "Plan Changes", that action changes the state on its own so there's no implicit state change transaction added.
The transactions themselves are kind of fluff, but it seems useful to keep a record of when state changes occurred in the transaction log. If people complain we can hide/remove them.
Test Plan: {F118143}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8339
Summary: Ref T2222. This mostly makes Accept/Reject work. The big missing piece is that overall revision status does not yet update properly. I need to think about how I want that to work a little bit more.
Test Plan: Accepted and rejected some stuff.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8333
Summary: Ref T2222. This is obsolete and no longer used. We could deduce it from transactions or commits in modern Phabricator if we wanted it. We may implement a more general mechanism for T4434.
Test Plan: `grep`
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8330
Summary:
Ref T2222. This introduces two small new concepts:
- `expandTransactions()`: allows a transaction to expand into several transactions. For example, "resign" adds a "remove reviewers" transaction.
- We have some other cases which could use this, but currently hard-code things outside of the `Editor`.
- One example is that in Maniphest, closing a task implies claiming it if it is unowned.
- `setIgnoreOnNoEffect()`: The whole Editor can be set to continue or stop if any transactions have no effect, but this allows the behavior to be refined at the individual transaction level. This is primarily to make the UX less confusing, so the user gets only a single relevant error instead of one for each expanded transaction.
Otherwise, this is pretty straightforward.
Test Plan:
Rigged comment form to use SavePro controller, enabled resign action, then tried to resign from a bunch of stuff.
{F117743}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8328
Summary: Ref T2222. Implements the simpler actions (abandon, reclaim, close, reopen, plan changes, request review) in a transactional way with validation and effect checks.
Test Plan:
- Rigged submissions to point at the Pro controller.
- Rigged dropdown to have all these options all the time.
- Tried to apply about 20-30 of these operations to various revisions and always got the expected result (success, error, or no-op).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8307
Summary: Ref T2222. Makes the "pro" controller work with inlines.
Test Plan: Added a bunch of inlines and saved them with the "pro" controller.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8306
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. Adds basic support for email.
Test Plan: Received an email via `/editpro/`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8303
Summary: Ref T3886. Now that a custom field can emit a core transaction, just emit a subscribers transaction.
Test Plan: {F116014}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8289
Summary:
Ref T3886. Ref T418.
- Adds "View Policy" and "Edit Policy" fields.
- Allows CustomFields to produce arbitrary types of transactions, so these fields can produce standard view/edit policy transactions and get all the strings and validation associated with them.
Test Plan: {F116001}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T418, T3886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8287
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 T3886. I spent a few hours trying to make `DifferentialFieldSpecification` extend `PhabricatorCustomField` so I could be more blunt in my approach here and just swap the whole thing over in one go (more or less like I did with Maniphest) but we have a ton of custom fields and things felt really shaky and the change was enormous and hard to keep track of.
Instead, I'm going to do this more gradually and go field-by-field. This implements a CustomField version of the "Title" field.
(There are no links to this in the UI.)
Test Plan:
{F115353}
{F115354}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8276
Summary: Ref T2222. Restore this funky is-visible / inline-is-elsewhere logic.
Test Plan: Updated a revision, saw all the inlines render properly when looking at various diffs and versus-diffs. Clicked inline links.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8224
Summary: Ref T2222. On the `tmp.differential` branch, we're currently having
issues parsing commits which reference Differential revisions, because the
"user closed this revision (closed by commit xyz)" message is fataling:
[2014-02-13 14:12:36] EXCEPTION: (PhutilProxyException) Error while
executing task ID 345358 from queue. {>} (AphrontQueryException)
#1048: Column 'contentSource' cannot be null
Specifically, the MessageParser pathway for CommentEditor doesn't set a content
source. Make sure CommentEditor always sets a content source.
(This is also causing a buildup of diffs on D8212 and D8211.)
Auditors: btrahan
Summary:
Ref T2222. This is the big one.
This migrates each `DifferentialComment` to one or more ApplicationTransactions (action, cc, reviewers, update, comment, inlines), and makes `DifferentialComment` a double-reader for ApplicationTransactions.
The migration is pretty straightforward:
- If a comment took an action not otherwise covered, it gets an "action" transaction. This is something like "epriestley abandoned this revision.".
- If a comment updated the diff, it gets an "updated diff" transaction. Very old transactions of this type may not have a diff ID (probably only at Facebook).
- If a comment added or removed reviewers, it gets a "changed reviewers" transaction.
- If a comment added CCs, it gets a "subscribers" transaction.
- If a comment added comment text, it gets a "comment" transaction.
- For each inline attached to a comment, we generate an "inline" transaction.
Most comments generate a small number of transactions, but a few generate a significant number.
At HEAD, the code is basically already doing this, so comments in the last day or two already obey these rules, roughly, and will all generate only one transaction (except inlines).
Because we've already preallocated PHIDs in the comment text table, we only need to write to the transaction table.
NOTE: This significantly degrades Differential, making inline comments pretty much useless (they each get their own transaction, and don't show line numbers or files). The data is all fine, but the UI is garbage now. This needs to be fixed before we can deploy this to users, but it's easily separable since it's all just display code.
Specifically, they look like this:
{F112270}
Test Plan:
I've migrated locally and put things through their paces, but it's hard to catch sketchy stuff locally because most of my test data is nonsense and bad migrations wouldn't necessarily look out of place.
IMPORTANT: I'm planning to push this to a branch and then shift production over to the branch, and run it for a day or two before bringing it to master.
I generally feel good about this change: it's not that big since we were able to separate a lot of pieces out of it, and it's pretty straightforward. That said, it's still one of the most scary/dangerous changes we've ever made.
Reviewers: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8210
Summary:
Ref T2222. Ref T4415. We're still writing Differential subscription stuff into this weird legacy `differential_relationship` table, which is like an edge table but extremely ancient.
Move it into a proper table.
I've removed `withSubscriptions()` from `DifferentialRevisionQuery`. It was weird, doesn't work consistently with other similar filters, and was only used by the API. Now it means "ccs", which is consistent with the ApplicationSearch UI and with Maniphest.
Test Plan:
Without migrating, added and removed subscribers via various workflows. Queried for subscribers. Everything worked as expected.
Ran the migration, verified data survived.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: FacebookPOC, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222, T4415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8202
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. Instead of writing one comment which performs both a diff update and adds a comment, write two comments, one for each action. These will translate directly into ApplicationTransactions writes.
This has a small impact on the UX: these updates now render in two rows, instead of one. After T2222, they'll automerge back together.
{F111909}
Test Plan: Updated a revision.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8200
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: ...and surface it in all adapters except commit adapters. Values are true or false. Ref T4294
Test Plan: made a herald rule to be cc'd on new tasks. was cc'd on new tasks and not cc'd on updates to existing tasks.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4294
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8142
Summary: Fixes T3857. Earlier work made this trivial and just left product questions, which I've answered by requiring the daemons to run on reasonable installs.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/search index` and `bin/search index --background`. Observed indexes write in the former case and tasks queue in the latter case. Commented with a unique string on a revision and searched for it a moment later, got exactly one result (that revision), verifying that reindexing works correctly.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3857
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7966
Summary:
Depends on D7500.
This seemed like a pretty good idea once I thought of it. Instead of having some custom triggering logic instead Harbormaster, I figured it best to leverage all of Herald's power so that users can create rules to apply builds to commits and differential revisions. This gives the added advantage that they can trigger off builds for particular types of revisions and commits, which seems like it could be really useful (e.g. run extra tests against revisions that touch sensitive areas of the code).
Test Plan: Ran the usual daemons + the Harbormaster daemon. Pushed a commit to the repository and saw both the buildable and build get created when the commit worked picked it up. Submitted a diff and saw both the buildable and build get created when the Herald rules were evaluated for the diff.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran, hwinkel
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7501
Summary:
Ref T2222. Shrink the API to make it easier to move this object's storage to ApplicationTransactions.
Fixes T3415. This moves the "Summary" and "Test Plan" into the property list, and thereby fixes all the attribution problems associated with commandeering, creating a revision from another user's diff, etc.
Test Plan: Browsed several revisions.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3415, T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7375
Summary: Ref T1279. The new stuff seems stable, so stop writes to the old tables.
Test Plan:
- Added and removed reviewers.
- Grepped for `::RELATIONSHIP_TABLE` to verify we really have no more reads.
- Grepped for `::RELATION_REVIEWER`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7360
Summary:
Ref T603. Allows the Differential view policy to be configured with a default.
I've omitted "edit" because I want to wait and see how comment/comment-action policies work out. I could imagine locking "edit" down to only the owner at some point, and providing a wider "interact" capability, or something like that, which would cover accept/reject/commandeer. Users in this group could still edit indirectly by commandeering first.
Test Plan: Created new revisions from the CLI and conduit.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7269
Summary:
Ref T1279. This is a logical change.
- "Reject" (nee "Request Changes") is now sticky. The review won't transition to "Accepted" until the reviewer clears their objection. In practice, I think it always worked like this anyway (without technical enforcement, users just followed this rule naturally, since disobeying this rule is kind of a dick move) so I don't expect this to change much. I think this rule is easier to understand than the old rule now, given the multi-reviewer status and blocking reviewers.
- "Blocking Reviewer" and "Reject" now prevent a revision from transitioning to "Accepted". When reviewers accept, resign, or are removed, we do a check to see if the reivsion has: at least one user reviewer who has accepted; zero rejects; and zero blocks. If all conditions are satisfied, we transition it to "accepted".
Practically, the primary net effect of this is just to make blocking reviews actually block.
This is pretty messy, but there's not much we can do about it until after T2222, since we have two completely separate editor pathways which are both responsible for adjusting status. Eventually, these can merge into a single sane editor which implements reasonable rules in reaonable ways. But that day is not today.
Test Plan: With three users and a project, made a bunch of accepts, rejects, resigns and reviewer removals. I think I probably covered most of the pathways? There are a lot of interactions here.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, wisutsak.jaisue.7
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7245
Summary: Ref T1279. These reviewers don't actually create a logical block yet (that is, revisions still transition to "accepted" even in their presence), but this handles everything except that.
Test Plan: Added Herald rules and updated revisions; see screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7244
Summary:
Ref T1279. With the new per-reviewer status, you can always accept or reject a revision.
This is primarily cosmetic/UI changes. In particular, you've always been able to reject a rejected revision, the UI just didn't show you an option.
Test Plan: Accepted accepted revisions; rejected rejected revisions. See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7243
Summary: Ref T1279. If you accept a revision, also accept on behalf of all the projects you have authority to accept for.
Test Plan:
- Accepted a revision which I was a reviewer on, saw my own status and an authority project's status change to "Accepted".
- Accepted a revision which I was not a reviewer on, saw my own status be added (as "Accepted") and the project's status update.
Also, see screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, wisutsak.jaisue.7
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7242
Summary:
Ref T1279. Although I think this is a bad idea in general (we once supported it, removed it, and seemed better off for it) users expect it to exist and want it to be available. Give them enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot.
I will probably write some lengthy treatise on how you shouldn't use this rule later.
Implementation is straightforward because Differential previously supported this rule.
This rule can also be used to add project reviewers.
Test Plan: Made some "add reviewers" rules, created revisions, saw reviewers trigger.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7235
Summary: Ref T1279. Updates status to 'accepted' or 'commented' when the user takes those actions.
Test Plan:
- Commented on a revision, got a comment icon.
- Accepted a revision, got an accept icon.
- Commented again, icon stayed as "accept".
- Faked the "old diff" states.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7229
Summary:
Ref T603. When a diff is attached to a revision, try to guess the repository if possible. In cases where we succeed, this automatically gives us intuitive policy behavior (i.e., you can see a revision if you can see the repository the change is against).
I pulled this into a funky little "Lookup" class for two reasons:
- It's used in two places;
- I anticipate that we might need to add some sort of `explainWhy()` method if users find the heuristics confusing.
Test Plan: Created and updated revisions, saw them pick up the correct repository association. Ran Herald dry run against associable and nonassociable revisions, saw correct values populate.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7147
Summary:
Currently, these events don't fire for Conduit updates, which makes them sort of silly.
This will get proper treatment after T2222.
Test Plan: Installed a `throw new Exception(...)` event listener. Performed Conduit and web updates of revisions, saw event listener fire.
Reviewers: btrahan, guywarner
Reviewed By: guywarner
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7004
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 T2852. Bleh, gross. Does what it says in the title.
Test Plan: {F54024}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2852
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6735
Summary:
Ref T2769. Get content types out of hard-coded config and into dynamic adapters.
This removes the "MERGE" and "OWNERS" content types, which were vestigal. These needs are likely better addressed through subscriptions/transactions, and are obsolete, and haven't existed for 2+ years and no one has asked for them to be restored.
Test Plan: Mostly a bunch of grep. Viewed rule list, rule edit. Edited a revision.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2769
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6656
Summary: One place used status, other used state. Killed state in favor of status.
Test Plan: None at all
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6422
Summary:
Keep track of the state of a reviewer in an edge between reviewer and revision.
The edge stores the state of the review, added or rejected. And if the revision was
accepted by that reviewer the id of the diff accepted.
Test Plan:
Create diffs and clowncopterize reviewer list changes. This includes:
* Adding new reviewers
* Resigning
* Commandering a revision
Reviewers: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6372
Conflicts:
src/applications/differential/editor/DifferentialCommentEditor.php
Summary:
1. Show add reviewer typehead when user selects resign as a reviewer.
2. Change the label for add reviewers typehead when user selects resign as a reviewer.
Test Plan:
1. Add yourself as a reviewer in a diff.
2. Select "Resign as Reviewer" in comment editor.
Add reviewer typehead should display, with label "Suggest Another Reviewer".
Add reviewer typehead is also displayed after user refreshed the page with "Resign as Reviewer"
selected.
Reviewers: wez, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, epriestley, akramer, person
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6340
