Summary: See PHI1396. Ideally this would be some kind of general-purpose tie-in to object relationships, but see D18456 for precedent.
Test Plan: Used `maniphest.edit` to edit associated commits for a task.
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20731
Summary:
Fixes T13356. This option is supported and works fine, it just isn't documented.
Add documentation and fix the config option to actually link to it to make life a little easier.
Test Plan: Read documentation.
Maniphest Tasks: T13356
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20691
Summary: Ref T4900. We may execute a bad query here if the task has no projects at all.
Test Plan: Edited a task with no new or old projects. Instead of an exception, things worked.
Maniphest Tasks: T4900
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20689
Summary:
Ref T4900. When a card is edited, we currently emit an update notification for all the projects the task is tagged with. This isn't quite the right set:
- We want to emit notifications for projects the task //was previously// tagged with, so it can be removed from boards it should no longer be part of.
- We want to emit notifications for ancestors of projects the task is or was tagged with, so parent project boards can be updated.
- However, we don't need to emit notifications for projects that don't actually have workboards.
Adjust the notification set to align better to these rules.
Test Plan:
- Removal of Parent Project: Edited a task on board "A > B", removing the "B" project tag. Saw board A update in another window.
- Normal Update: Edited a task title on board X, saw board X update in another window.
- Used `bin/aphlict debug` to inspect the notification set, saw generally sensible-seeming data going over the wire.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T4900
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20680
Summary:
Depends on D20654. Ref T4900. When a task is edited, emit a "workboards" event for all boards it appears on (in a future change, this should also include all boards it //previously// appeared on, and all parents of both sets of boards -- but I'm just getting things working for now).
When we receive a "workboards" event, check if the visible board should be updated.
Aphlict has a complicated intra-window leader/follower election system which could let us process this update event exactly once no matter how many windows a user has open with the same workboard. I'm not trying to do any of this since it seems fairly rare. It makes sense for events like "you have new notifications" where we don't want to generate 100 Ajax calls if the user has 100 windows open, but very few users seem likely to have 100 copies of the same workboard open.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/aphlict debug`.
- Opened workboard A in two windows, X and Y.
- Edited and moved tasks in window X.
- Saw "workboards" messages in the Aphlict log.
- Saw window Y update in nearly-real-time (locally, this is fast enough that it feels instantaneous).
Then:
- Stopped the Aphlcit server.
- Edited a task.
- Started the Aphlict server.
- Saw window Y update after a few moments (i.e., update in response to a reconnect).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T4900
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20656
Summary:
Depends on D20639. Ref T4900. Currently, "BoardResponseEngine" has a `setObjectPHID()` method. This is called after edit operations to mean "we just edited object X, so we know it needs to be updated".
Move toward `setUpdatePHIDs(...)` in all cases, with `setUpdatePHIDs(array(the-object-we-just-edited))` as a special case of that. After this change, callers pass:
- An optional list of PHIDs they know need to be updated on the client. Today, this is always be a card we just edited (on edit/move flows), or a sort of made-up list of PHIDs for the moment (when you press "R"). In the future, the "R" endpoint will do a better job of figuring out a more realistic update set.
- An optional list of PHIDs currently visible on the client. This is used to update ordering details and mark cards for removal. This is currently passed by edit/move, but not by pressing "R" (it will be in the future).
- An optional list of objects. The "R" workflow has to load these anyway, so we can save a couple queries by letting callers pass them. For now, the edit/move flows still rely on the engine to figure out what it needs to load.
This does very little to actually change client behavior, it mostly just paves the way for the next update to the "R" workflow to make it handle add/remove cases properly.
Test Plan:
- Edited and moved cards on a workboard.
- Pressed "R" to reload a workboard.
Neither of these operations seem any worse off than they were before. They still don't fully work:
- When you edit a card and delete the current workboard project from it, it remains visible. This is also the behavior on `master`. This is sort of intentional since we don't necessarily want to make these cards suddenly disappear? Ideally, we would probably have some kind of "tombstone" state where the card can still be edited but can't be dragged, and the next explicit user interaction would clean up old tombstones. This interaction is very rare and I don't think it's particularly important to specialize.
- When a card is removed from the board, "R" can't currently figure out that it should be removed from the client. This is because the client does not yet pass a "visiblePHIDs" state. It will in an upcoming change.
- The "R" flow always sends a full set of card updates, and can not yet detect that some cards have not changed.
- There's a TODO, but some ordering stuff isn't handled yet.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T4900
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20652
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/view-task-from-maniphest-e-mail-doesnt-have-url/2827>.
I added "View Task" / "View Commit" buttons recently but the logic for generating URIs isn't quite right. Fix it up.
Test Plan:
- Commented on a task.
- Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ... --dump-html > out.html` to dump the HTML.
- Previewed the HTML in a browser.
- This time, actually clicked the button to go to the task.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20586
Summary:
See downstream <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1050>. Some time ago, we added a "View Revision" button to Differential mail. This hasn't created any problems and generally seems good / desirable.
It isn't trivial to just add everywhere since we need a translation string in each case, but at least add it to Maniphest for now. Going forward, we can fill in more applications as they come up.
Test Plan:
Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id <x> --dump-html`:
{F6470461}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20561
Summary:
See PHI1222. When we publish several transactions to feed at once, we sort them by "action strength" to figure out which one gets to be the title story.
This sort currently uses `msort()`, which uses `asort()`, which is not a stable sort and has inconsistent behavior across PHP versions:
{F6463721}
Switch to `msortv()`, which is a stable sort. Previously, see also T6861.
If all transactions have the same strength, we'll now consistently pick the first one.
This probably (?) does not impact anything in the upstream, but is good from a consistency point of view.
Test Plan:
Top story was published after this change and uses the chronologically first transaction as the title story.
Bottom story was published before this change and uses the chronologically second transaction as the title story.
Both stories have two transactions with the same strength ("create" + "add reviewer").
{F6463722}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20540
Summary:
Ref T13279. For now, we need to render burndowns from both Maniphest (legacy) and Projects (new prototype).
Consolidate this logic into a "BurndownChartEngine". I plan to expand this to work a bit like a "SearchEngine", and serve as a UI layer on top of the raw chart features.
The old "ChartEngine" is now "ChartRenderingEngine".
Test Plan:
- Viewed burndowns ("burnups") in Maniphest.
- Viewed burndowns in Projects.
- Saw the same chart.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim
Maniphest Tasks: T13279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20496
Summary:
Depends on D20485. Ref T13279. This removes the ad-hoc charting in Maniphest and replaces it with a Facts-based chart.
(To do this, we build a dashboard panel inline and render it.)
Test Plan: {F6412720}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim
Maniphest Tasks: T13279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20486
Summary:
Ref T13279. Charting changes alter how the "line-chart" behavior works, but the "Burnup Chart" still relies on the old behavior.
Although I'm intending to remove "Maniphest > Reports" once Facts is a minimally sufficient replacement, copy this behavior to keep it working until we're ready to pull the trigger.
Also fix a leftover typo from D20435.
Test Plan: Viewed a legacy Maniphest burnup rate report.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20449
Summary:
See downstream <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T209449>.
The "Bulk Edit" flow works with `setContinueOnMissingFields(true)`, so `newRequiredError()` errors are ignored. This allows you to apply a transaction which changes the title to `""` (the empty string) without actually hitting any errors which the workflow respects.
(Normally, `setContinueOnMissingFields(...)` workflows only edit properties that can't be missing, like the status of an object, so this is an unusual flow.)
Instead, validate more narrowly:
- Transactions which would remove the title get an "invalid" error, which is respected even under "setContinueOnMissingFields()".
- Then, we try to raise a "missing/required" error if everything otherwise looks okay.
Test Plan:
- Edited a task title normally.
- Edited a task to remove the title (got an error).
- Created a task with no title (disallowed: got an error).
- Bulk edited a task to remove its title.
- Before change: allowed.
- After change: disallowed.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20339
Summary:
Ref T13269. Currently, if you're on a milestone workboard like this:
> Projects > Parent > Milestone > Workboard
The "Parent" link goes to the parent profile. More often, I want it to go to the parent workboard. Try doing that? This is kind of one-off but I suspect it's a better rule.
Also, consolidate one billion manual constructions of "/board/" URIs.
Test Plan: Viewed a milestone workboard, clicked the parent link, ended up on the parent workboard.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13269
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20331
Summary:
Ref T13269. These cards really have three states:
- Editable: shows a pencil icon edit button.
- You Do Not Have Permission To Edit This: shows a "no editing" icon in red.
- Hovecard: shouldn't show anything.
However, the "hovercard" and "no permission" states are currently the same state, so when I made the "no permission" state more obvious that made the hovercard go all weird.
Make these states explicitly separate states.
Test Plan:
Looked at a...
- Editable card on workboard: edit state.
- No permission card on workboard: no permission state.
- Any hovercard: "not editable, this is a hovercard" state.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13269
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20330
Summary: If "GD" doesn't support a particular image type, applying a cover image currently goes through but no-ops. Fail it earlier in the process with a more specific error.
Test Plan: Without PNG support locally, dropped a PNG onto a card on a workboard. Got a more useful error.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20328
Summary:
Depends on D20320. Ref T12175. Ref T13074. Currently, when you move a card between columns, the internal transaction takes exactly one `afterPHID` or `beforePHID` and moves the card before or after the specified card.
This is a fairly strict interpretation and causes a number of practical issues, mostly because the user/client view of the board may be out of date and the card they're dragging before or after may no longer exist: another user might have moved or hidden it between the last client update and the current time.
In T13074, we also run into a more subtle issue where a card that incorrectly appears in multiple columns fatals when dropped before or after itself.
In all cases, a better behavior is just to complete the move and accept that the position may not end up exactly like the user specified. We could prompt the user instead:
> You tried to drop this card after card X, but that card has moved since you last loaded the board. Reload the board and try again.
...but this is pretty hostile and probably rarely/never what the user wants.
Instead, accept a list of before/after PHIDs and just try them until we find one that works, or accept a default position if none work. In essentially all cases, this means that the move "just works" like users expect it to instead of fataling in a confusing/disruptive/undesirable (but "technically correct") way.
(A followup will make the client JS send more beforePHIDs/afterPHIDs so this works more often.)
We could eventually add a "strict" mode in the API or something if there's some bot/API use case for precise behavior here, but I suspect none exist today or are (ever?) likely to exist in the future.
Test Plan:
- (T13074) Inserted two conflicting rows to put a card on two columns on the same board. Dropped one version of it underneath the other version. Before: confusing fatal. After: cards merge sensibly into one consistent card.
- (T12175) Opened two views of a board. Moved card A to a different column on the first view. On the second view, dropped card B under card A (still showing in the old column). Before: confusing fatal. After: card ended up in the right column in approximately the right place, very reasonably.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13074, T12175
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20321
Summary:
See downstream <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T210482>.
On mobile, the task graph can take up most of the screen. Hide it on devices. Keep it on the standalone view if you're really dedicated and willing to rotate your phone or whatever to see the lines.
Test Plan: Dragged window real narrow, saw graph hide.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20313
Summary:
Depends on D20292. Ref T13259. This converts the rest of the `getPagingValueMap()` callsites to operate on internal cursors instead.
These are pretty one-off for the most part, so I'll annotate them inline.
Test Plan:
- Grouped tasks by project, sorted by title, paged through them, saw consistent outcomes.
- Queried edges with "edge.search", paged through them using the "after" cursor.
- Poked around the other stuff without catching any brokenness.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13259
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20293
Summary:
See PHI1134. Previously, see T13082 and D19969 for some sort-of-related stuff.
Currently, edits work roughly like this:
- Suppose we're editing object X, and we're also going to edit some other object, Y, because X mentioned Y or the edit is making X a child or parent of Y, or unblocking Y.
- Do the actual edit to X, including inverse edits ("alice mentioned Y on X.", "alice added a child revision: X", etc) which apply to Y.
- Run Herald rules on X.
- Publish the edit to X.
The "inverse edits" currently do this whole process inline, in a sub-editor. So the flow expands like this:
- Begin editing X.
- Update properties on X.
- Begin inverse-edge editing Y.
- Update properties on Y.
- Run (actually, skip) Herald rules on Y.
- Publish edits to Y.
- Run Herald rules on X.
- Publish edits to X.
Notably, the "Y" stuff publishes before the "X" Herald rules run. This creates potential problems:
- Herald rules may change the name or visibility policy of "X", but we'll publish mail about it via the edits to Y before those edits apply. This is a problem only in theory, we don't ship any upstream rules like this today.
- Herald rules may "Require Secure Mail", but we won't know that at the time we're building mail about the indirect change to "Y". This is a problem in practice.
Instead, switch to this new flow, where we stop the sub-editors before they publish, then publish everything at the very end once all the edits are complete:
- Begin editing X.
- Update properties on X.
- Begin inverse-edge editing Y.
- Update properties on Y.
- Skip Herald on Y.
- Run Herald rules on X.
- Publish X.
- Publish all child-editors of X.
- Publish Y.
Test Plan:
- Created "Must Encrypt" Herald rules for Tasks and Revisions.
- Edited object "A", an object which the rules applied to directly, and set object "B" (a different object which the rules did not hit) as its parent/child and/or unblocked it.
- In `bin/mail list-outbound`, saw:
- Mail about object "A" all flagged as "Must Encrypt".
- Normal mail from object B not flagged "Must Encrypt".
- Mail from object B about changing relationships to object A flagged as "Must Encrypt".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20283
Summary:
Depends on D20270. Ref T10333. If you create a task with a new owner, or edit a task and change the priority/owner, we want to move it (and possibly create a new header) when the response comes back.
Make sure the response includes the appropriate details about the object's header and position.
Test Plan:
- Grouped by Owner.
- Created a new task with a new owner, saw the header appear.
- Edited a task and changed it to give it a new owner, saw the header appear.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10333
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20271
Summary:
Depends on D20267. Depends on D20268. Ref T10333. Currently, we support "Natural" and "Priority" orders, but a lot of the particulars are pretty hard-coded, including some logic in `ManiphestTask`.
Although it's not clear that we'll ever put other types of objects on workboards, it seems generally bad that you need to modify `ManiphestTask` to get a new ordering.
Pull the ordering logic out into a `ProjectColumnOrder` hierarchy instead, and let each ordering define the things it needs to work (name, icon, what headers look like, how different objects are sorted, and how to apply an edit when you drop an object under a header).
Then move the existing "Natural" and "Priority" orders into this new hierarchy.
This has a minor bug where using the "Edit" workflow to change a card's priority on a priority-ordered board doesn't fully refresh card/header order since the response isn't ordering-aware. I'll fix that in an upcoming change.
Test Plan: Grouped workboards by "Natural" and "Priority", dragged stuff around within and between columns, grepped for all touched symbols.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10333
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20269
Summary:
Depends on D20265. Ref T10333. Now that neither task lists nor workboards use subpriority, we can remove all the readers and writers.
I'm not actually getting rid of the column data yet, but anticipate doing that in a future change.
Note that the subpriority algorithm (removed here) is possibly better than the "natural order" algorithm still in use. It's a bit more clever, and likely performs far fewer writes. I might make the "natural order" code use an algorithm more similar to the "subpriority" algorithm in the future.
Test Plan: Grepped for `subpriority`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10333
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20266
Summary:
Depends on D20263. Ref T10333. I want to add groups like "Assignee" to workboards. This means you may have several tasks grouped under, say, "Alice".
When you drag the bottom-most task under "Alice" to the top, what does that mean?
Today, the only grouping is "Priority", and it means "change the task's secret/hidden global subpriority". However, this seems to generally be a somewhat-bad answer, and is quite complex. It also doesn't make much sense for an author grouping, since one task can't really be "more assigned" to Alice than another task.
Users likely intend this operation to mean "move it, visually, with no other effects" -- that is, user intent is to shuffle sticky notes around on a board, not edit anything substantive. The meaning is probably something like "this is similar to other nearby tasks" or "maybe this is a good place to start", which we can't really capture with any top-level attribute.
We could extend "subpriority" and give tasks a secret/hidden "sub-assignment strength" and so on, but this seems like a bad road to walk down. We'll also run into trouble later when subproject columns may appear on the board, and a user could want to put a task in different positions on different subprojects, conceivably.
In the "Natural" order view, we already have what is probably a generally better approach for this: a task display order particular to the column, that just remembers where you put the sticky notes.
Move away from "subpriority", and toward a world where we mostly keep sticky notes where you stuck them and move them around only when we have to. With no grouping, we still sort by "natural" order, as before. With priority grouping, we now sort by `<priority, natural>`. When you drag stuff around inside a priority group, we update the natural order.
This means that moving cards around on a "priority" board will also move them around on a "natural" board, at least somewhat. I think this is okay. If it's not intuitive, we could give every ordering its own separate "natural" view, so we remember where you stuck stuff on the "priority" board but that doesn't affect the "Natural" board. But I suspect we won't need to.
Test Plan:
- Viewed and dragged a natural board.
- Viewed and dragged a priority board.
- Dragged within and between groups of 0, 1, and multiple items.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10333
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20265
Summary:
Ref T13074. Today, in normal task list views in Maniphest (not workboards), you can (sometimes) reorder tasks if the view is priority-sorted.
I suspect no one ever does this, few users know it's supported, and that it was basically rendered obsolete the day we shipped workboards.
This also means that we need to maintain a global "subpriority" for tasks, which distinguishes between different tasks at the same priority level (e.g., "High") and maintains a consistent ordering on workboards.
As we move toward making workboards more flexible (e.g., group by author / owner / custom fields), I'd like to try moving away from "subpriority" and possibly removing it entirely, in favor of "natural order", which basically means "we kind of remember where you put the card and it works a bit like a sticky note".
Currently, the "natural order" and "subpriority" systems are sort of similar but also sort of in conflict, and the "subpriority" system can't really be extended while the "natural order / column position" system can.
The only real reason to have a global "subpriority" is to support the list-view drag-and-drop.
It's possible I'm wrong about this and a bunch of users love this feature, but we can re-evaluate if we get feedback in this vein.
(This just removes UI, the actual subpriority system is still intact and still used on workboards.)
Test Plan: Viewed task lists, was no longer able to drag stuff. Grepped for affected symbols. Dragged stuff in remaining grippable lists, like "Edit Forms" in EditEngine config.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13074
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20263
Summary:
Ref T10333. Ref T8135. Depends on D20247. Allow users to drag-and-drop cards on a priority-sorted workboard under headers, even if the header has no other cards.
As of D20247, headers show up but they aren't really interactive. Now, you can drag cards directly underneath a header (instead of only between other cards). For example, if a column has only one "Wishlist" task, you may drag it under the "High", "Normal", or "Low" priority headers to select a specific priority.
(Some of this code still feels a little rough, but I think it will generalize once other types of sorting are available.)
Test Plan: Dragged cards within and between priority groups, saw appropriate priority edits applied in every case I could come up with.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10333, T8135
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20248
Summary:
Ref T10333. When workboards are ordered (for example, by priority), add headers to the various groups. Major goals are:
- Allow users to drag-and-drop to set values that no cards currently have: for example, you can change a card priority to "normal" by dragging it under the "normal" header, even if no other cards in the column are currently "Normal".
- Make future orderings more useful, particularly "order by assignee". We don't really have room to put the username on every card and it would create a fair amount of clutter, but we can put usernames in these headers and then reference them with just the profile picture. This also allows you to assign to users who are not currently assigned anything in a given column.
- Make the drag-and-drop behavior more obvious by showing what it will do more clearly (see T8135).
- Make things a little easier to scan in general: because space on cards is limited, some information isn't conveyed very clearly (for example, priority information is currently conveyed //only// through color, which can be hard to pick out visually and is probably not functional for users who need vision accommodations).
- Maybe do "swimlanes": this is pretty much a "swimlanes" UI if we add whitespace at the bottom of each group so that the headers line up across all the columns (e.g., "Normal" is at the same y-axis position in every column as you scroll down the page). Not sold on this being useful, but it's just a UI adjustment if we do want to try it.
NOTE: This only makes these headers work for display.
They aren't yet recognized as targets by the drag list UI, so you can't drag cards into an empty group. I'll tackle that in a followup.
Test Plan: {F6257686}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10333
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20247
Summary: Depends on D20256. Ref T13249. See PHI1115. This primarily makes `bin/policy unlock --owner epriestley T123` work. This is important for "Edit Locked" tasks, since changing the edit policy doesn't really do anything.
Test Plan: Hard-locked a task as "alice", reassigned it to myself with `bin/policy unlock --owner epriestley`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20257
Summary:
See PHI1059. If you close a task, we apply an "alice closed a subtask: X" transaction to its parents.
This transaction is purely informative, but currently requires `CAN_EDIT` permission after T13186. However, we'd prefer to post this transaction anyway, even if: the parent is locked; or the parent is not editable by the acting user.
Replace the implicit `CAN_EDIT` requirement with no requirement.
(This transaction is only applied internally (by closing a subtask) and can't be applied via the API or any other channel, so this doesn't let attackers spam a bunch of bogus subtask closures all over the place or anything.)
Test Plan:
- Created a parent task A with subtask B.
- Put task A into an "Edits Locked" status.
- As a user other than the owner of A, closed B.
Then:
- Before: Policy exception when trying to apply the "alice closed a subtask: B" transaction to A.
- After: B closed, A got a transaction despite being locked.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20223
Summary: Stragglers from the great "%Q" migration.
Test Plan: Ran a query for tasks with parent tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20183
Summary:
Ref T13249. See PHI1059. This allows "locked" in `maniphest.statuses` to specify that either "comments" are locked (current behavior, advisory, overridable by users with edit permission, e.g. for calming discussion on a contentious issue or putting a guard rail on things); or "edits" are locked (hard lock, only task owner can edit things).
Roughly, "comments" is a soft/advisory lock. "edits" is a hard/strict lock. (I think both types of locks have reasonable use cases, which is why I'm not just making locks stronger across the board.)
When "edits" are locked:
- The edit policy looks like "no one" to normal callers.
- In one special case, we sneak the real value through a back channel using PolicyCodex in the specific narrow case that you're editing the object. Otherwise, the policy selector control incorrectly switches to "No One".
- We also have to do a little more validation around applying a mixture of status + owner transactions that could leave the task uneditable.
For now, I'm allowing you to reassign a hard-locked task to someone else. If you get this wrong, we can end up in a state where no one can edit the task. If this is an issue, we could respond in various ways: prevent these edits; prevent assigning to disabled users; provide a `bin/task reassign`; uh maybe have a quorum convene?
Test Plan:
- Defined "Soft Locked" and "Hard Locked" statues.
- "Hard Locked" a task, hit errors (trying to unassign myself, trying to hard lock an unassigned task).
- Saw nice new policy guidance icon in header.
{F6210362}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20165
Summary:
Ref T13248. This will probably need quite a bit of refinement, but we can reasonably allow subtype definitions to adjust custom field behavior.
Some places where we use fields are global, and always need to show all the fields. For example, on `/maniphest/`, where you can search across all tasks, you need to be able to search across all fields that are present on any task.
Likewise, if you "export" a bunch of tasks into a spreadsheet, we need to have columns for every field.
However, when you're clearly in the scope of a particular task (like viewing or editing `T123`), there's no reason we can't hide fields based on the task subtype.
To start with, allow subtypes to override "disabled" and "name" for custom fields.
Test Plan:
- Defined several custom fields and several subtypes.
- Disabled/renamed some fields for some subtypes.
- Viewed/edited tasks of different subtypes, got desired field behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13248
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20161
Summary:
See PHI1073. Improve the UX here:
- When there are a small number of connected tasks, no changes.
- When there are too many total connected tasks, but not too many directly connected tasks, show hint text with a "View Standalone Graph" button to view more of the graph.
- When there are too many directly connected tasks, show better hint text with a "View Standalone Graph" button.
- Always show a "View Standalone Graph" option in the dropdown menu.
- Add a standalone view which works the same way but has a limit of 2,000.
- This view doesn't have "View Standalone Graph" links, since they'd just link back to the same page, but is basically the same otherwise.
- Increase the main page task limit from 100 to 200.
Test Plan:
Mobile View:
{F6210326}
Way too much stuff:
{F6210327}
New persistent link to the standalone page:
{F6210328}
Kind of too much stuff:
{F6210329}
Standalone view:
{F6210330}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: 20after4
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20164
Summary: Ref T13250. See D20149. Mostly: clarify semantics. Partly: remove magic "null" behavior.
Test Plan: Poked around, but mostly just inspection since these are pretty much one-for-one.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim
Maniphest Tasks: T13250
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20154
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 T11782. When you "Close as Duplicate", generate a "[Merged]" email by making the merge the first transaction.
(There are other, more-deterministic ways to do this with action strength, but this is much simpler and I believe it suffices.)
Test Plan: Used "Close as Duplicate", got a "[Merged]" email out of it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11782
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19972
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: See PHI1017. This is a trivial fix even though these burnups are headed toward a grisly fate.
Test Plan: Moused over some January datapoints, saw "1" instead of "0".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19967
Summary:
Ref T7477. The various "create a new X via email" applications (Paste, Differential, Maniphest, etc) all have a bunch of duplicate code.
The inheritance stack here is generally a little weird. Extend these from a shared parent to reduce the number of callsites I need to change when this API is adjusted for T7477.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests. This will get more thorough testing once more pieces are in place.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19950
Summary:
Ref T920. Ref T7477. We currently drop empty mail only once it reaches the `ReplyHandler` layer.
I think no plausible receiver can ever do anything useful with this kind of mail, so we can safely drop it earlier and simplify some of the logic. After T7477, we'd end up throwing multiple exceptions if you sent empty mail to several valid receivers.
(I also want to move away from APIs oriented around raw addresses in more specialized layers, and this is one of the few callsites for raw mail address information.)
This requires updating some unit tests to actually have message bodies, since they failed with this error before hitting the other errors otherwise.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to send empty mail, got appropriate "err:empty" out of it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477, T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19947
Summary:
Depends on D19898. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Allow objects to opt into an "MFA is required for all edits" mode.
Put tasks in this mode if they're in a status that specifies it is an `mfa` status.
This is still a little rough for now:
- There's no UI hint that you'll have to MFA. I'll likely add some hinting in a followup.
- All edits currently require MFA, even subscribe/unsubscribe. We could maybe relax this if it's an issue.
Test Plan:
- Edited an MFA-required object via comments, edit forms, and most/all of the extensions. These prompted for MFA, then worked correctly.
- Tried to edit via Conduit, failed with a reasonably comprehensible error.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19899
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:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/tasks-created-via-workboard-column-menu-are-moved-to-wrong-column/2200>. The recent `setIsConduitOnly()` / `setIsFormField()` change (in D19842) disrupted creating tasks directly into a column from the workboard UI.
This field //is// a form field, it just doesn't render a visible control.
Test Plan:
- Created a task directly into a workboard column. Before: column selection ignored. After: appeared in correct column.
- Used "move on workboard" comment action.
- Edited tasks; edited forms for tasks. Didn't observe any collateral damage (weird "Column" fields being present).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19870
Summary:
Ref T13222. Fixes T12588. See PHI683. In several cases, we present the user with a choice between multiple major options: Alamnac service types, Drydock blueprint types, Repository VCS types, Herald rule types, etc.
Today, we generally do this with radio buttons and a "Submit" button. This isn't terrible, but often it means users have to click twice (once on the radio; once on submit) when a single click would be sufficient. The radio click target can also be small.
In other cases, we have a container with a link and we'd like to link the entire container: notifications, the `/drydock/` console, etc. We'd like to just link the entire container, but this causes some problems:
- It's not legal to link block eleements like `<a><div> ... </div></a>` and some browsers actually get upset about it.
- We can `<a><span> ... </span></a>` instead, then turn the `<span>` into a block element with CSS -- and this sometimes works, but also has some drawbacks:
- It's not great to do that for screenreaders, since the readable text in the link isn't necessarily very meaningful.
- We can't have any other links inside the element (e.g., details or documentation).
- We can `<form><button> ... </button></form>` instead, but this has its own set of problems:
- You can't right-click to interact with a button in the same way you can with a link.
- Also not great for screenreaders.
Instead, try adding a `linked-container` behavior which just means "when users click this element, pretend they clicked the first link inside it".
This gives us natural HTML (real, legal HTML with actual `<a>` tags) and good screenreader behavior, but allows the effective link target to be visually larger than just the link.
If no issues crop up with this, I'd plan to eventually use this technique in more places (Repositories, Herald, Almanac, Drydock, Notifications menu, etc).
Test Plan:
{F6053035}
- Left-clicked and command-left-clicked the new JS fanciness, got sensible behaviors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19855
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. After D19853, "Create Subtask" may pop a dialog to let you choose between multiple forms.
Allow users to configure which forms are available by using `maniphest.subtypes` to choose available children for each subtype. Users may either specify particular subtypes or specific forms.
Test Plan: Configured "Quest" tasks to have "Objective" children, got appropriate prompt behavior. Used "subtypes" and "forms" to select forms; used "forms" to reorder forms.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19854
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. Currently, "Create Subtask" always uses the first edit form that the user has access to for the same task subtype. (For example, if you "Create Subtask" from a "Bug", you get the first edit form for "Bugs".)
I didn't want to go too crazy with the initial subtype implementation, but it seems like we're generally on firm ground and it's working fairly well: user requests are for more flexibility in using the system as implemented, not changes to the system or confusion/difficulty with any of the tradeoffs. Thus, I'm generally comfortable continuing to build it out in the same direction. To improve flexibility, I want to make the options from "Create Subtask" more flexible/configurable.
I plan to let you specify that a given subtype (say, "Quest") prompts you with creation options for a set of other subtypes (say, "Objective"), or prompts you with a particular set of forms.
If we end up with a single option, we just go into the current flow (directly to the edit form). If we end up with more than one option, we prompt the user to choose between them.
This change is a first step toward this:
- When building "Create Subtask", query for multiple forms.
- The default behavior is now "prompt user to choose among create forms of the same subtype". Previously, it was "use the first edit form of the same subtype". This is a behavioral change.
- The next change will make the selected forms configurable.
- (I also plan to make the dialog itself less rough.)
Test Plan: {F6051067}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19853
Summary: Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. To make "Create Subtask..." fancier, we need slightly more logic around subtype maps. Upgrade the plain old array into a proper object so it can have relevant methods, notably "get a list of valid child subtypes for some parent subtype".
Test Plan: Created and edited tasks, changed task subtypes. Grepped for affected symbols (`newEditEngineSubtypeMap`, `newSubtypeMap`).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19852
