Summary: Ref T11114. This comments nearly working on EditEngine. Only significant issue I caught is that the "View" link doesn't render properly because it depends on JS which is tricky to hook up. I'll clean that up in a future diff.
Test Plan: {F2279201}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17116
Summary: Fixes T8572. Ideally we would probably just permit this, but clean up the behavior until the day arrives when inline code is actually rewritten.
Test Plan:
- Tried to launch editors in Differential and Diffusion while comments were already open.
- Verified that "Jump to inline" works in both cases.
{F788008}
{F788009}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8572
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14094
Summary: Fixes T8098. This parameter was being misinterpreted over the wire.
Test Plan: Replied to left-side inline, got left-side reply.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8098
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12747
Summary:
Ref T1460. Overall:
- Pass `objectOwnerPHID` consistently.
- Pass viewer consistently.
- Set the correct draft state for checkboxes on the client.
Test Plan:
- Made inline comments in Differential.
- Made inline comments in Diffusion.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12186
Summary: Ref T7660. I'm not toggling "inline-state-is-draft" correctly in JS yet since it's a little tricky (you can reload to see it) but the main state should work.
Test Plan:
- Clicked "done", saw comment opacity fade with placeholder style.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7660
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12160
Summary:
Fixes T7658. Currently, we remove the "undo" before placing the comment, but that causes us to lose track of which row we should be examining.
Instead, place the comment first, then remove the "undo".
Test Plan: This stuff is hard to test comprehensively, but the original report reproduced easily and is now fixed. I wasn't able to break anything by adding/editing/deleting comments.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7658
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12157
Summary:
Ref T1460. This just barely works, but throwing it up in case any of it sounds mechanically crazy before we build integrations/UI/etc.
Specifically, these are the behaviors:
- You can mark your own draft comments as "done" before you submit them. The intent is to let reviewers mark their stuff advisory/minor/not-important before they submit it, to hint to authors that they don't expect the feedback to necessarily be addressed (maybe it's a joke, maybe it's just discussion, maybe it's "consider..").
- You can mark others' published comments as "done" if you're the revision/commit author. The intent is to keep this lightweight by not requiring an audit trail of who marked what done when. If anyone could mark anything done, we'd have to have some way to show who marked stuff.
- When you mark stuff done (or unmark it), it goes into a "draft" state, where you see the change but others don't see it yet. The intent is twofold:
- Be consistent with how inlines work.
- Allow us to publish a "epriestley updated this revision + epriestley marked 15 inlines as done" story later if we want. This seems more useful than publishing 15 "epriestley marked one thing as done" stories.
- The actual bit where done-ness publishes isn't implemented.
- UI is bare bones.
- No integration with the rest of the UI yet.
Test Plan: Clicked some checkboxes.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: paulshen, chasemp, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12033
Summary:
Ref T2009. Ref T1460.
Fixes T2618. When users hit "Delete" on inline comments, delete immediately and offer them "Undo". If they delete indirectly (e.g., by clicking "Delete" from the preview at the bottom of the page), we still prompt them, because the "Undo" action either won't be available or may not be easy to find. This is a "refdelete".
Fixes T6464. This was just a mess. Make it not as much of a mess. It should work now. Pretty sure.
Fixes T4999. We did not refresh these links often enough to find targets for them, so they could race with content. Reevaluate them after loading new changes.
Test Plan:
- Deleted and undid deletion of inlines from main view and preview.
- Clicked "View" on inlines.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6464, T4999, T2618, T1460, T2009
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12032
Summary:
Ref T1460. Track and store which comments are threaded replies to other comments, vs merely appearing on the same lines.
This doesn't actually write `hasReplies` yet, since that needs to happen when we un-draft comments on submission.
Test Plan: Made inline comments in Differential and Diffusion, including replies. Replies were marked as "Is Reply".
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12017
Summary:
Ref T2009. This reduces how buggy inlines are. They're still buggy.
Specifically, the inline endpoint didn't know how to scaffold inlines before, so some of them ended up rendering in the wrong rows or breaking layouts.
This passes the current renderer through to the inline editor endpoint, so it can at least get the layout correct.
Test Plan: Interacted with inlines in unified and side-by-side views.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2009
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11988
Summary:
Ref T2009. Currently, we do not persist view parameters when making context rendering requests.
The big one is the renderer (1up vs 2up). This makes context on unified diffs come in with too many columns.
However, it impacts other parameters too. For example, at HEAD, if you change highlighting to "rainbow" and then load more context, the context uses the original highlighter instead of the rainbow highlighter.
This moves context loads into ChangesetViewManager, which maintains view parameters and can provide them correctly.
- This removes "ref"; it is no longer required, as the ChangesetViewManager tracks it.
- This removes URI management from `behavior-show-more`; it is no longer required, since the ChangesetViewManager knows how to render.
- This removes "whitespace" since this is handled properly by the view manager.
Test Plan:
- Used "Show Top" / "Show All" / "Show Bottom" in 1-up and 2-up views.
- Changed file highlighting to rainbow, loaded stuff, saw rainbow stick.
- Used "Show Entire File" in 1-up and 2-up views.
- Saw loading chrome.
- No loading chrome normally.
- Made inlines, verified `copyRows()` code runs.
- Poked around Diffusion -- it is missing some parameter handling, but works OK.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2009
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11977
Summary:
Fixes T3814. Broadly, remarkup tables in inline comments did not work properly. I ran into several messes here and cleaned up some of them:
- Some of this code is doing `JX.$N('div', {}, JX.$H(response.markup))`, to turn an HTML response into a node, passing that around, and then doing junk with it. This is super old and gross.
- The slightly more modern pattern is `JX.$H(response.markup).getFragment().firstChild`, but this is kind of yuck too and not as safe as it could be.
- Introduce `JX.$H(response.markup).getNode()`, which actually expresses intent here. We have a bunch of `getFragment().firstChild` callsites which should switch to this, but I didn't clean those up yet because I don't want to test them all.
- Switch the `JX.$N('div', {}, JX.$H(response.markup))`-style callsites to `JX.$H(response.markup).getNode()`.
- `copyRows()` is too aggressive in finding `<tr />` tags. This actually causes the bug in T3814. We only want to find these tags at top level, not all tags. Don't copy `<tr />` tags which belong to some deeper table.
- Once this is fixed, there's another bug with mousing over the cells in tables in inline comments. We select the nearest `<td />`, but that's the cell in the remarkup table. Instead, select the correct `<td />`.
- At this point, these last two callsites were looking ugly. I provided `findAbove()` to clean them up.
Test Plan: Created, edited, deleted, moused over, and reloaded a revision with inline comments including remarkup tables. Used "Show more context" links.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3814
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6924
Summary: If `jsxmin` is not available, use a pure PHP implementation instead (JsShrink).
Test Plan:
- Ran `arc lint --lintall` on all JS and fixed every relevant warning.
- Forced minification on and browsed around the site using JS behaviors. Didn't hit anything problematic.
Reviewers: vrana, btrahan
Reviewed By: vrana
CC: aran, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5670
Summary:
This is straightforward, except that `form.submit()` does not call onsubmit handlers. Create a `didSyntheticSubmit` event and have everything which listens for form submits listen for it too.
Fixes T704.
Test Plan: Hit control + enter in inline comments, main commetns, Pholio, conpherence. Verified it triggered appropriate JS (workflow / special behaviors).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T704
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D4704
Summary:
This lets you delete inlines from the preview at the bottom of
the page, instead of hunting for them through the diffs.
There is not yet a keyboard shortcut.
The mechanism for updating the inlines in the diffs is kind of a hack
and I'm sure I'm special-casing way too much, but at least it works.
Test Plan:
Load revision with many diffs. Create inlines all over the
place. Delete them all. Mwahaha.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T1433, T1431
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3131
Test Plan:
Edit inline comment.
Clear its text.
Hit Cancel.
Try to find Undo link on the usual place with no success.
Repeat for same text.
Repeat for different text, this time with success.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D1739
Summary:
The current approach of using a modal overlay dialog to create/edit inline
comments is pretty silly. Use an inline textarea instead.
This element isn't perfect and we have some mild modalness issues, but I think
it's better than the silly thing we've got going on right now. We can keep
poking it as people break it.
Test Plan:
- Created comments; submitted and undid them in empty and nonempty states.
Used undo for nonempty states + cancel.
- Edited comments; saved and canceled them. Used undo for changed state.
- Replied to comments; yada yada as above.
- Deleted comments.
- Did various modal trickery where I clicked "Reply" on something else with a
dialog already up, this very mildly glitches but I think it's not a big issue.
Reviewers: vrana, btrahan, Makinde, nh
Reviewed By: vrana
CC: aran, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T431
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D1716
Summary: See D939. Regardless of what we do there, these will break, and they're
pretty silly anyway (see the giant caveat comments in the second one).
Test Plan: Clicked a direct-jump comment link, did save/cancel for inline
comments.
Reviewers: phil, cpojer, tomo, mroch
Reviewed By: phil
CC: aran, phil
Differential Revision: 940
Summary:
We use a 'null' row to indicate the element should be appended to the end of the
table (otherwise, it is prepended to the row in question), but also derive the
table from the row. This needs more cleanup in general but fix the immediate
issue at least.
Test Plan:
Added an inline comment to the last line of a file.
Reviewed By: jungejason
Reviewers: tuomaspelkonen, jungejason, aran
CC: aran, jungejason
Differential Revision: 425
Summary:
When a user hits 'cancel' on a 'new', 'edit', or 'reply' operation, add a little
"Changes discarded. __Undo__" insert so they can get their change back. No undo
for delete since there's an explicit prompt. Once this lands we can make
'escape' work again to close dialogs.
This change started feeling really good when I was merging all the duplicate
code and making things more consistent, but by the time I started writing client
rendering it felt gross. I'm not really thrilled with it but I guess it's a step
forward? The feature seems pretty OK in practice. Let me know how much barfing
this causes and I can try to remedy the most acute concerns.
This also fixes a bug where replies always (?) appear on the 'new' side of the
diff (I think?).
Test Plan:
Applied 'new', 'edit', 'delete' and 'reply' operations, pressed 'cancel' and
'okay' in each case, with and without changing text where relevant. All
behaviors seem to conform with expectations, except that canceling out of 'edit'
without changing the text gives you an option to undo when it shouldn't really.
There's no super easy way to get at the original text right now.
Reviewed By: aran
Reviewers: aran, jungejason, tuomaspelkonen
CC: simpkins, aran, epriestley
Differential Revision: 406
