Summary:
Ref T13053. Adds revision stamps (status, reviewers, etc). Adds Herald rule stamps, like the existing X-Herald-Rules header.
Removes the "self" stamps, since you can just write a rule against `whatever(@epriestley)` equivalently. If there's routing logic around this, it can live in the routing layer. This avoids tons of self-actor, self-mention, self-reviewer, self-blocking-reviewer, self-resigned-reviewer, etc., stamps.
Use `natcasesort()` instead of `sort()` so that numeric values (like monograms) sort `9, 80, 700` instead of `700, 80, 9`.
Remove the commas from rendering since they don't really add anything.
Test Plan: Edited tasks and revisions, looked at mail stamps, saw stamps that looked pretty reasonable (with no more self stuff, no more commas, sorting numbers, and Herald stamps).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18997
Summary: Ref T13053. Adds more mail tags with information available on the Editor object.
Test Plan: Banged around in Maniphest, viewed the resulting mail, all the stamps seemed to align with reality.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18995
Summary:
Ref T10448. Currently, we use "mail tags" (in {nav Settings > Email Preferences}) to give users some ability to route mail. There are a number of major issues with this:
- It isn't modular and can't be extended by third-party applications.
- The UI is a giant mess of 5,000 individual settings.
- Settings don't map clearly to actual edits.
- A lot of stuff isn't covered by any setting.
This adds a new system, called "mail stamps", which is similar to "mail tags" but tries to fix all these problems.
I called these "stamps" because: stamps make sense with mail; we can't throw away the old system just yet and need to keep it around for a bit; we don't use this term for anything else; it avoids confusion with project tags.
(Conceptually, imagine these as ink stamps like "RETURN TO SENDER" or "FRAGILE", not actual postage stamps.)
The only real "trick" here is that later versions of this will need to enumerate possible stamps for an object and maybe all possible stamps for all objects in the system. This is why stamp generation is separated into a "template" phase and a "value" phase. In future changes, the "template" phase can be used on its own to generate documentation and typeaheads and let users build rules. This may need some more refinement before it really works since I haven't built any of that yet.
Also adds a preference for getting stamps in the header only (default) or header and body (better for Gmail, which can't route based on headers).
Test Plan:
Fiddled with preference, sent some mail and saw a "STAMPS" setting in the body and an "X-Phabricator-Stamps" header.
{F5411694}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10448
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18991
Summary: Ref T13025. We're getting kind of a lot of actions, so put them in nice groups so they're easier to work with.
Test Plan: {F5386038}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18880
Summary:
Ref T13025. This is some minor technical stuff: make the "select" bulk edit type a little more consistent with other types by passing data down instead of having it reach up the stack. This simplifies the implementation of a custom field "select" in a future change.
Also, provide an option list to the "select" edit field for object subtypes. This is only accessible via Conduit so it currently never actually renders anything in the UI, but with the bulk edit stuff we get some initialization order issues if we don't set anything. This will also make any future changes which expose subtypes more broadly more straightforward.
Test Plan:
- Bulk edited "select" fields, like "Status" and "Priority".
- No more fatal when trying to `getOptions()` internally on the subtype field.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18878
Summary:
Depends on D18866. Ref T13025. Fixes T12415. This makes the old "Add Comment" action work, and adds support for a new "Set description to" action (possibly, I could imagine "append description" being useful some day, maybe).
The implementation is just a `<textarea />`, not a whole fancy remarkup box with `[Bold] [Italic] ...` buttons, preview, typeaheads, etc. It would be nice to enrich this eventually but doing the rendering in pure JS is currently very involved.
This requires a little bit of gymnastics to get the transaction populated properly, and adds some extra validation since we need some code there anyway.
Test Plan:
- Changed the description of a task via bulk editor.
- Added a comment to a task via bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T12415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18867
Summary:
Ref T12997. Although we can't query by transaction type (since we can't easily enumerate all possible types which may have comments -- inline types may also have comments), we //can// just check if there's a comment row or not.
This reduces the amount of garbage we need to load to rebuild indexes for unusual objects with hundreds and hundreds of mentions.
Test Plan:
- Used batch editor to mention a task 700 times.
- Indexed it before and after this change, saw index time drop from {nav 1600ms > 160ms}.
- Made some new comments on it, verified that they still indexed/queried properly.
- Browsed around, made normal transactions, made inline comments.
- Added a unique word to an inline comment, indexed revision, searched for word, found revision.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12997
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18660
Summary:
Ref T12819. Some of the extensions "enrich" the document (adding more fields or relationships), while others "index" it (insert it into some kind of index for later searching).
Currently, these are all muddled under a single "index" phase. However, the Ferret extension cares about fields and relationships which other extensions may add.
Split this into two phases: "enrich" adds fields and relationships so other extensions can read them later if they want. "Index" happens after the document is built and has all the fields and relationships.
The specific problem this solves is that comments may not have been added to the document when the Ferret extension runs. By moving them to the "enrich" phase, the Ferret engine will be able to see and index comments.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/search index ...`, grepped for `indexFulltextDocument`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12819
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18513
Summary:
Ref T12335. Fixes T11207. Edit-like interactions which are not performed via "Edit <object>" are a bit of a grey area, policy-wise.
For example, you can correctly do these things to an object you can't edit:
- Comment on it.
- Award tokens.
- Subscribe or unsubscribe.
- Subscribe other users by mentioning them.
- Perform review.
- Perform audit.
- (Maybe some other stuff.)
These behaviors are all desirable and correct. But, particularly now that we offer stacked actions, you can do a bunch of other stuff which you shouldn't really be able to, like changing the status and priority of tasks you can't edit, as long as you submit the change via the comment form.
(Before the advent of stacked actions there were fewer things you could do via the comment form, and more of them were very "grey area", especially since "Change Subscribers" was just "Add Subscribers", which you can do via mentions.)
This isn't too much of a problem in practice because we won't //show// you those actions if the edit form you'd end up on doesn't have those fields. So on intalls like ours where we've created simple + advanced flows, users who shouldn't be changing task priorities generally don't see an option to do so, even though they technically could if they mucked with the HTML.
Change this behavior to be more strict: unless an action explicitly says that it doesn't need edit permission (comment, review, audit) don't show it to users who don't have edit permission and don't let them take the action.
Test Plan:
- As a user who could not edit a task, tried to change status via comment form; received policy exception.
- As a user who could not edit a task, viewed a comment form: no actions available (just "comment").
- As a user who could not edit a revision, viewed a revision form: only "review" actions available (accept, resign, etc).
- Viewed a commit form but these are kind of moot because there's no separate edit permission.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335, T11207
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17452
Summary:
Ref T12314. If you set a form to have the "plant" subtype, then create a task with it, save "plant" as the task subtype.
For Conduit, the default subtype is used by default, but a new "subtype" transaction is exposed. You can apply this transaction at create time to create an object of a certain subtype, or at any later time to change the subtype of an object.
This still doesn't do anything particularly useful or interesting.
Test Plan:
- Created a non-subtyped object (a Paste).
- Created "task" and "plant" tasks via different forms.
- Created "default" and "plant" tasks via Conduit.
- Changed the subtype of a task via Conduit.
- Tried to set a bad subtype.
{F3492061}
{F3492066}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17443
Summary:
Ref T11114. This creates `differential.revision.edit` (a modern, v3 API method) and redefines the existing methods in terms of it.
Both `differential.createrevision` and `differential.updaterevision` are now internally implemented by building a `differential.revision.edit` API call and then executing it.
I //think// this covers everything except custom fields, which need some tweaking to work with EditEngine. I'll clean that up in the next change.
Test Plan:
- Created, updated, and edited revisions via `arc`.
- Called APIs manually via test console.
- Stored custom fields ("Blame Rev", "Revert Plan") aren't exposed yet.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17067
Summary: Ref T11132, significantly cleans up the Config app, new layout, icons, spacing, etc. Some minor todos around re-designing "issues", mobile support, and maybe another pass at actual Group pages.
Test Plan: Visit and test every page in the config app, set new items, resolve setup issues, etc.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T11132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16468
Summary: Switches over to new property UI boxes, splits core and apps into separate pages. Move Versions into "All Settings". I think there is some docs I likely need to update here as well.
Test Plan: Click on each item in the sidebar, see new headers.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16429
Summary:
Ref T10010.
- Default name to "Milestone X".
- Remove policy controls, which have no effect.
- Don't generate slugs for milestones since this is a big pain where they all generate as `#milestone_1` by default (you can add one if you want). I plan to add some kind of syntax like `#parent/32` to mean "Milestone 32 in Parent" later.
- Don't require projects to have unique names (again, 900 copies of "Milestone X"). I think we can trust users to sort this out for themselves since modern Phabricator has "Can Create Projects" permission, etc.
Test Plan: Created some milestones, had a less awful experience.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14909
Summary:
Ref T9979. This is currently hard-coded but can be done in a generic way.
This has one minor behavioral changes: answer text is no longer included in the question text index in Ponder. I'm not planning to accommodate that for now since I don't want to dig this hole any deeper than I already have. This behavior should be different anyway (e.g., index the answer, then show the question in the results or something).
Test Plan:
- Put a unique word in a Maniphest comment.
- Searched for the word.
- Found the task.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14837
Summary: Ref T9979. Convert all DestructionEngine behaviors to extensions.
Test Plan:
{F1033244}
Destroyed an object, verifying:
- Herald transcripts were destroyed;
- edges were destroyed;
- flags were destroyed;
- tokens were destroyed;
- transactions were destroyed;
- worker tasks were cancelled.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14832
