Summary:
Ref T10967. This is explained in more detail in T10967#217125
When an author does "Request Review" on an accepted revision, void (in the sense of "cancel out", like a bank check) any "accepted" reviewers on the current diff.
Test Plan:
- Create a revision with author A and reviewer B.
- Accept as B.
- "Request Review" as A.
- (With sticky accepts enabled.)
- Before patch: revision swithced back to "accepted".
- After patch: the earlier review is "voided" by te "Request Review", and the revision switches to "Review Requested".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17566
Summary:
Ref T11050. The old rule was "you can only resign if you're a reviewer".
With the new behavior of "resign", the rule should be "you can resign if you're a reviewer, or you have authority over any reviewer". Make it so.
Also fixes T12446. I don't know how to reproduce that but I'm pretty sure this'll fix it?
Test Plan:
- Could not resign from a revision with no authority/reviewer.
- Resigned from a revision with myself as a reviewer.
- Resigned from a revision with a package I owned as a reviewer.
- Could not resign from a revision I had already resigned from.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12446, T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17558
Summary:
Ref T12271. Don't do anything with this yet, but store who accepted/rejected/whatever on behalf of reviewers.
In the future, we could use this to render stuff like "Blessed Committers (accepted by epriestley)" or whatever. I don't know that this is necessarily super useful, but it's easy to track, seems likely to be useful, and would be a gigantic pain to backfill later if we decide we want it.
Test Plan: Accepted/rejected a revision, saw reviewers update appropriately.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17537
Summary:
Ref T12271. Currenty, when you "Accept" a revision, you always accept it for all reviewers you have authority over.
There are some situations where communication can be more clear if users can accept as only themselves, or for only some packages, etc. T12271 discusses some of these use cases in more depth.
Instead of making "Accept" a blanket action, default it to doing what it does now but let the user uncheck reviewers.
In cases where project/package reviewers aren't in use, this doesn't change anything.
For now, "reject" still acts the old way (reject everything). We could make that use checkboxes too, but I'm not sure there's as much of a use case for it, and I generally want users who are blocking stuff to have more direct accountability in a product sense.
Test Plan:
- Accepted normally.
- Accepted a subset.
- Tried to accept none.
- Tried to accept bogus reviewers.
- Accepted with myself not a reviewer
- Accepted with only one reviewer (just got normal "this will be accepted" text).
{F4251255}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17533
Summary:
Fixes T11050. Today, when a user resigns, we just delete the record of them ever being a reviewer.
However, this means you have no way to say "I don't care about this and don't want to see it on my dashboard" if you are a member of any project or package reviewers.
Instead, store "resigned" as a distinct state from "not a reviewer", and treat it a little differently in the UI:
- On the bucketing screen, discard revisions any responsible user has resigned from.
- On the main `/Dxxx` page, show these users as resigned explicitly (we could just hide them, too, but I think this is good to start with).
- In the query, don't treat a "resigned" state as a real "reviewer" (this change happened earlier, in D17517).
- When resigning, write a "resigned" state instead of deleting the row.
- When editing a list of reviewers, I'm still treating this reviewer as a reviewer and not special casing it. I think that's sufficiently clear but we could tailor this behavior later.
Test Plan:
- Resigned from a revision.
- Saw "Resigned" in reviewers list.
- Saw revision disappear from my dashboard.
- Edited revision, saw user still appear as an editable reviewer. Saved revision, saw no weird side effects.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17531
Summary:
Ref T10967. Improves some method names:
- `Revision->getReviewerStatus()` -> `Revision->getReviewers()`
- `Revision->attachReviewerStatus()` -> `Revision->attachReviewers()`
- `Reviewer->getStatus()` -> `Reviewer->getReviewerStatus()` (this is mostly to make this more greppable)
Test Plan:
- bunch o' `grep`
- Browsed around.
- If I missed anything, it should fatal in an obvious way. We have a lot of other `getStatus()` calls and it's hard to be sure I got them all.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17522
Summary:
Ref T10967. We have a "commented" state to help reviewers get a better sense of who is part of a discussion, and a "last action" state to help distinguish between "accept" and "accepted an older version", for the purposes of sticky accepts and as a UI hint.
Currently, these are first-class states, partly beacuse we were somewhat limited in what we could do with edges. However, a more flexible way to represent them is as flags separate from the primary state flag.
In the new storage, write them as separate state information: `lastActionDiffPHID` stores the Diff PHID of the last review action (accept, reject, etc). `lastCommentDiffPHID` stores the Diff PHID of the last comment (top-level or inline).
Test Plan: Applied storage changes, commented and acted on a revision. Saw appropriate state reflected in the database.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17514
Summary:
Ref T10967. This is an incremental step toward removing "reviewers" back to a dedicated storage table so we can handle changes like T11050.
This adds the storage table, and starts doing double writes to it (so new or updated reviewers write to both the old edge table and the new "reviewers" table).
Then we can do a migration, swap readers over one at a time, and eventually remove the old write and old storage and then implement new features.
This change has no user-facing impact, it just causes us to write new data to two places instead of one.
This is not completely exhaustive: the Herald "Add Reviewers" action is still doing a manual EDGE transaction. I'll clean that up next and do another pass to look for anything else I missed.
This is also a bit copy/pastey for now but the logic around "RESIGN" is a little different in the two cases until T11050. I'll unify it in future changes.
Test Plan:
- Did a no-op edit.
- Did a no-op comment.
- Added reviewers.
- Removed reviewers.
- Accepted and rejected revisions.
After all of these edits, did a `SELECT * FROM differential_reviewer` manually and saw consistent-looking rows in the database.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17495
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 T11114. Converting to EditEngine caused us to stop running this validation, since these fields no longer subclass this parent. Restore the validation.
Also, make sure we check the //first// line of the value, too. After the change to make "Tests: xyz" a valid title, you could write silly summaries / test plans and escape the check if the first line was bogus.
Test Plan: {F2493228}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17248
Summary:
To set this up:
- alice accepts a revision.
- Something adds a package or project she has authority over as a reviewer.
- Because alice has already accepted, she can not re-accept, but she should be able to (in order to accept on behalf of the new project or package).
Test Plan:
- Created a revision.
- Accepted as user "dog".
- Added "dog project".
- Re-accepted.
- Could not three-accept.
- Removed "dog project.
- Rejected.
- Added "dog project".
- Re-rejected.
- Could not three-reject.
Reviewers: chad, eadler
Reviewed By: chad, eadler
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17226
Summary: Ref T11114. Ref T10978. These hadn't made it over to EditEngine yet.
Test Plan:
- Took various actions on revisions and commits.
- Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ...` to examine the "Vary Subject", saw it properly generate "[Accepted]", "[Resigned]", etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T10978
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17191
Summary: Ref T11114. After evaluating typeahead tokens, we could process blocking reviewer removals incorrectly: we may get structures back.
Test Plan: Removed blocking reviewers from the web UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17163
Summary: Ref T11114. Move email/command actions, like "!reject", to modular transactions + editengine.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to pipe "!stuff" to an object, saw appropraite effects in web UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17133
Summary:
Ref T11114. When a user selects "Accept", and then selects "Reject", remove the "Accept". It does not make sense to both accept and reject a revision.
For now, every one of the "actions" conflicts: accept, reject, resign, claim, close, commandeer, etc, etc. I couldn't come up with any combinations that it seems like users are reasonably likely to want to try, and we haven't received combo-action requests in the past that I can recall.
Test Plan:
- Selected "Accept", then selected "Reject". One replaced the other.
- Selected "Accept", then selected "Change Subscribers". Both co-existed happily.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17132
Summary:
Ref T11114. See D17114 for some discussion.
For review actions: accept, reject, resign.
For revision actions, order is basically least-severe to most-severe action pairs: plan changes, request review, close, reopen, abandon, reclaim, commandeer.
Test Plan: Viewed revisions as an author and a reviewer, saw sensible action order within action groups.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17115
Summary:
Ref T11114. Differential has more actions than it once did, and may have further actions in the future.
Make this dropdown a little easier to parse by grouping similar types of actions, like "Accept" and "Reject".
(The action order still needs to be tweaked a bit.)
Test Plan: {F2274526}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: eadler
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17114
Summary:
Ref T11114. Some rough edges, but this largely makes Accept, Reject and Resign work in the new EditEngine comment area.
Ref T11050. This lays a little bit of groundwork for having "resign" mean "I don't want to review this, even if projects or packages I'm a member of need to", not just "remove me personally as a user reviewer".
Test Plan: Accepted, rejected and resigned from revisions without any major state issues.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17113
Summary:
Ref T11114. This has two pieces of side-effect logic which I've noted locally:
- Commandeer needs to apply Herald rules.
- Commandeer needs to move the old author to become a reviewer and remove
the actor as a reviewer.
Test Plan: Commandeered some revisions.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17111
Summary:
Ref T11114. This restores these actions.
One behavior is incomplete: "Request Review" on an accepted revision does not downgrade reviewers properly. I've noted this locally.
Test Plan: Planned changes and requested review of a revision.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17109
Summary:
Ref T11114. This restores these actions as selectable in the comment area.
This does not implement one special rule ("Closing a revision in response to a commit is OK from any status.") but I have a note about that separately.
Test Plan: Closed and reopened revisions.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17108
Summary: Ref T11114. This begins restoring comment actions to Differential, but on top of EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F2263148}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17107
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 T12020. Ref T11114. If we continue here on a mention, we try to generate `$old`, which requires reviewers to be attached. They won't be for simple codepaths like mentions.
Instead, just bail early: we don't need to do anything anyway since we can't possibly find any more errors with zero transactions.
Test Plan: Mentioned a revision on a task.
Reviewers: chad, avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T12020
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17059
Summary: Ref T11114. This one is a bit more complex, but I think I covered everything.
Test Plan:
- Added reviewers.
- Removed reviewers.
- Made reviewers blocking.
- Made reviewers nonblocking.
- Tried to make the author a reviewer.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17050
Summary: Ref T11114. The only real trick here is that we respect configuration in `differential.fields`.
Test Plan: Turned plan on and off, tried to remove the plan, edited the plan.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17048
Summary: Ref T11114. These are unambiguous and always-enabled.
Test Plan: {F2117777}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17047
Summary:
Ref T11114. Currently, all of Differential is extremely custom CustomFields. I want to back away from that somewhat and leverage more EditEngine / ModularTransactions infrastructure.
This allows EditEngine, ModularTransactions, and CustomFields to coexist in an uneasy peace. The "EditPro" controller applies a //different edit// than the CustomFields do, but everything works out in the end. I think.
Hopefully the horrible mess I am creating here will be short-lived.
Test Plan:
- Edited a revision with the normal editor.
- Edited a revision with the pro editor.
- Created a revision with `arc diff`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17044
