Summary:
Ref T4103. This pretty much replaces these panels in-place with similar looking ones that go through EditEngine.
This has a few rough edges but they're pretty minor and/or hard to hit (for example, when editing another user's settings, the crumbs have a redundant link in them).
Test Plan:
- Edited my own settings.
- Edited a bot user's settings.
- Tried to edit another user's settings (failed).
{F1674465}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4103
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16017
Summary:
Ref T10923. Paging wasn't being applied correctly when creating //new// repositories after API changes.
Also, the first redirect after creation wasn't sending users to the right place.
Test Plan:
- Created a new repostiory, got redirected properly.
- Verified that new repostiory flow has the correct fields (name, callsign, etc) and Conduit API has the correct fields (everything).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10923
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15865
Summary:
Ref T10748. This needs more extensive testing and is sure to have some rough edges, but seems to basically work so far.
Throwing this up so I can work through it more deliberately and make notes.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration.
- Used `bin/repository list` to list existing repositories.
- Used `bin/repository update <repository>` to update various repositories.
- Updated a migrated, hosted Git repository.
- Updated a migrated, observed Git repository.
- Converted an observed repository into a hosted repository by toggling the I/O mode of the URI.
- Conveted a hosted repository into an observed repository by toggling it back.
- Created and activated a new empty hosted Git repository.
- Created and activated an observed Git repository.
- Updated a mirrored repository.
- Cloned and pushed over HTTP.
- Tried to HTTP push a read-only repository.
- Cloned and pushed over SSH.
- Tried to SSH push a read-only repository.
- Updated several Mercurial repositories.
- Updated several Subversion repositories.
- Created and edited repositories via the API.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10748
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15842
Summary:
Ref T10748. This allows an EditEngine form to be broken up into pages.
This is less powerful than `PHUIPagedFormView`, because the pages are not sequential / stateful. Each form saves immediately once it's submitted, and can not take you to a new form or back/forward in a series of forms.
For example, you can't create a workflow where the user fills out 5 pages of information before we create an object, like the current repository workflow does.
However, the only place we've ever wanted to do this is repositories and it's fairly bad there, so I feel reasonably confident we aren't going to miss this in the future.
(We do "choose a type of service/repository/rule -> fill out one page of info" fairly often, but can do this without the full-power paging stuff.)
Test Plan:
- Created a repository usin the new Manage UI, filling out only a handful of fields.
- Edited a repository using the new Manage UI.
- All forms are now EditEngine forms offering paged views of the big huge underlying form:
{F1254371}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10748
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15832
Summary: Ref T10748. This brings the "Actions" items (publish/notify + autoclose enabled) into the new UI.
Test Plan:
- Edited this stuff via EditEngine and Conduit.
- Viewed via new Manage UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10748
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15811
Summary: This is completely obsoleted by `owners.search`. See D15472.
Test Plan: Viewed API method in UI console.
Reviewers: avivey, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15769
Summary:
Ref T6027. Normally, actions use the same order as the form, but in some cases (like moving stuff on workboards) it makes sense to reorder them explicitly.
Pin "Move on board" near the bottom, and "projects/subscribers" at the bottom. I think these are generally reasonable rules in all cases.
Test Plan: Opened menu, saw slightly better action order.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6027
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15639
Summary: View various conduit pages and update to new UI and add calls to newPage
Test Plan: View list, view method, make a call.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15613
Summary: Cleans up EditEngine, adds new layout to EditEngine and descendents
Test Plan: Test creating a new form, reordering, marking and unmarking defaults. View new forms.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15531
Summary:
Ref T10537. For Nuance, I want to introduce new sources (like "GitHub" or "GitHub via Nuance" or something) but this needs to modularize eventually.
Split ContentSource apart so applications can add new content sources.
Test Plan:
This change has huge surface area, so I'll hold it until post-release. I think it's fairly safe (and if it does break anything, the breaks should be fatals, not anything subtle or difficult to fix), there's just no reason not to hold it for a few hours.
- Viewed new module page.
- Grepped for all removed functions/constants.
- Viewed some transactions.
- Hovered over timestamps to get content source details.
- Added a comment via Conduit.
- Added a comment via web.
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade --namespace XXXXX --no-quickstart -f` to re-run all historic migrations.
- Generated some objects with `bin/lipsum`.
- Ran a bulk job on some tasks.
- Ran unit tests.
{F1190182}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10537
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15521
Summary: See D15432. There, we can use this test to check if the user //could// reassign the task by using "Edit Form" or the stacked actions, so any dedicated "claim" element is consistent with the other permissions.
Test Plan:
- Added a `var_dump($can_reassign)` after the call.
- Saw `true`.
- Edited the edit form, locked and disabled "Assigned To".
- Saw `false`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15433
Summary:
Fixes T10410. Immediate impact of this is that you can now actually delete properties from Almanac services, devices and bindings.
The meat of the change is switching from CustomField to EditEngine for most of the actual editing logic. CustomField creates a lot of problems with using EditEngine for everything else (D15326), and weird, hard-to-resolve bugs like this one (not being able to delete stuff).
Using EditEngine to do this stuff instead seems like it works out much better -- I did this in ProfilePanel first and am happy with how it looks.
This also makes the internal storage for properties JSON instead of raw text.
Test Plan:
- Created, edited and deleted properties on services, devices and bindings.
- Edited and reset builtin properties on repository services.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10410
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15327
Summary: Mostly for consistency, we're not using other forms of icons and this makes all classes that use an icon call it in the same way.
Test Plan: tested uiexamples, lots of other random pages.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15125
Summary:
Ref T10054. This does a big chunk of the legwork to let users reconfigure profile menus (currently, just project menus).
This includes:
- Editing builtin items (e.g., you can rename the default items).
- Creating new items (for now, only links are available).
This does not yet include:
- Hiding items.
- Reordering items.
- Lots of fancy types of items (dashboards, etc).
- Any UI changes.
- Documentation (does feature: TODO link for documentation).
Test Plan:
{F1060695}
{F1060696}
{F1060697}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15010
Summary:
Fixes T10117.
- I accidentally broke setting `null` to unassign tasks at some point when I added richer validation.
- Raise a better error if the user passes junk.
Test Plan:
- Unassigned a task via API and web UI.
- Reassigned a task via API and web UI.
- Tried to do an invalid assign via API, got a sensible error.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10117
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14992
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 T9897. This one is a little more involved because of how getting a post on a blog works.
I also changed moving posts to be a real transaction (which shows up in history, now).
Test Plan: Created posts from web UI and conduit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9897
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14902
Summary: Ref T10004. This primarily supports moving Phame to EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F1045166}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14887
Summary:
Ref T10004. This restores "alice created this task." transactions, but in a generic way so we don't have to special case one of the other edits with an old `null` value.
In most cases, creating an object now shows only an "alice created this thing." transaction, unless nonempty defaults (usually, policy or spaces) were adjusted.
Test Plan: Created pastes, tasks, blogs, packages, and forms. Saw a single "alice created this thing." transaction.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14820
Summary: Ref T10004. Happy to take another approach here or just not bother, this just struck me as a little ambiguous/confusing.
Test Plan:
Before, not necessarily clear that the "Create Task" header only applies to the first few items.
{F1029126}
After, more clear:
{F1029127}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14815
Summary:
Fixes T7661. Ref T9527.
When you create a task, especially with an EditEngine form, you currently get more noise than is useful. For example:
> alice created this task.
> alice changed the edit policy from "All Users" to "Community (Project)".
> alice added projects: Feature Request, Differential.
> alice added a subscriber: alice.
Transaction (1) is a little useful, since it saves us from a weird empty state and shows the object creation time.
Transaction (2) is totally useless (and even misleading) because that's the default policy for the form.
Transaction (3) isn't //completely// useless but isn't very interesting, and probably not worth the real-estate.
Transaction (4) is totally useless.
(These transactions are uniquely useless when creating objects -- when editing them later, they're fine.)
This adds two new rules to hide transactions:
- Hide transactions from object creation if the old value is empty (e.g., set title, set projects, set subscribers).
- Hide transactions from object creation if the old value is the same as the form default value (e.g., set policy to default, set priorities to default, set status to default).
NOTE: These rules also hide the "created this object" transaction, since it's really one of those transaction types in all cases. I want to keep that around in the long term, but just have it be a separate `TYPE_CREATE` action -- currently, it is this weird, inconsistent action where we pick some required field (like title) and special-case the rendering if the old value is `null`. So fixing that is a bit more involved. For now, I'm just dropping these transactions completely, but intend to restore them later.
Test Plan:
- Created objects.
- Usually saw no extra create transactions.
- Saw extra create transactions when making an important change away from form defaults (e.g., overriding form policy).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7661, T9527
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14810
Summary:
Ref T10004. Tweaks some of the UX a little to be more intuitive/inviting?
- Button says "Configure Form" instead of "Actions".
- Root list is less "developer-ey" and more "explain what this is for-ey".
Test Plan:
{F1028928}
{F1028929}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14808
Summary: Ref T9964. Create some docuemntation for this stuff, and clean up the *.edit endpoints a bit.
Test Plan: Read documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14798
Summary:
Ref T9964. Three goals here:
- Make it easier to supply Conduit documentation.
- Make automatic documentation for `*.edit` endpoints more complete, particularly for custom fields.
- Allow type resolution via Conduit types, so you can pass `["alincoln"]` to "subscribers" instead of needing to use PHIDs.
Test Plan:
- Viewed and used all search and edit endpoints, including custom fields.
- Used parameter type resolution to set subscribers to user "dog" instead of "PHID-USER-whatever".
- Viewed HTTP parameter documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14796
Summary:
Ref T9964.
- New mechanism for rich documentation on unusual/complicated edits.
- Add some docs to `paths.set` since it's not self-evident what you're supposed to pass in.
Test Plan: {F1027177}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14791
Summary:
Ref T9908. Fixes T6205.
This is largely some refactoring to improve the code. The new structure is:
- Each EditField has zero or one "submit" (normal edit form) controls.
- Each EditField has zero or one "comment" (stacked actions) controls.
- If we want more than one in the future, we'd just add two fields.
- Each EditField can have multiple EditTypes which provide Conduit transactions.
- EditTypes are now lower-level and less involved on the Submit/Comment pathways.
Test Plan:
- Added and removed projects and subscribers.
- Changed task statuses.
- In two windows: added some subscribers in one, removed different ones in the other. The changes did not conflict.
- Applied changes via Conduit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6205, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14789
Summary: Ref T9983. This method is spelled wrong.
Test Plan: Hit this case, got a dialog instead of a fatal.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9983
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14786
Summary:
Ref T9980. No magic here, just write a little bit about how to find outdated callers. Update the technical doc.
Also:
- Fix an unrelated bug where you couldn't leave comments if an object had missing, required, custom fields.
- Restore the ConduitConnectionLog table so `bin/storage adjust` doesn't complain.
Test Plan: Read docs.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9980
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14784
Summary:
Ref T9964. The new `*.search` and `*.edit` methods generate documentation which depends on the viewer.
For example, the `*.search` methods show a reference table of the keys for all your saved queries.
Give them a real viewer to work with.
During normal execution, just populate this viewer with the request's viewer, so `$request->getViewer()` and `$this->getViewer()` both work and mean the same thing.
Test Plan: {F1023780}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14761
Summary:
Ref T9132. I think the featureset is approximatley stable, so here's some documentation.
I also cleaned up a handful of things in the UI and tried to make them more obvious or more consistent.
Test Plan: Read documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14718
Summary: Ref T9908. This is the last of the things that need to swap over.
Test Plan:
- Created tasks from a workboard.
- Created tasks in different columns.
- Edited tasks.
- Used `?parent=..`.
- Verified that default edit form config now affects comment actions.
- No more weird comment thing on forms, at least for now.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14715
Summary: Ref T9908. Fixes T8903. This moves the inline edit from task lists (but not from workboards) over to editengine.
Test Plan:
- Edited a task from a draggable list.
- Edited a task from an undraggable list.
- Edited a task, changed projects, saw refresh show correct projects.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8903, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14711
Summary: Ref T9908. This fixes "Create Subtask" so it works with the new stuff. Mostly straightforward.
Test Plan: Created some subtasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14706
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. Puts reordering UI in place:
- For create forms, this just lets you pick a UI display order other than alphabetical. Seems nice to have.
- For edit forms, this lets you create a hierarchy of advanced-to-basic forms and give them different visibility policies, if you want.
Test Plan:
{F1017842}
- Verified that "Edit Thing" now takes me to the highest-ranked edit form.
- Verified that create menu and quick create menu reflect application order.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14704
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. This attempts to move us forward on answering this question:
> Which form gets used when a user clicks "Edit Task"?
One answer is "the same form that was used to create the task". There are several problems with that:
- The form might not exist anymore.
- The user might not have permission to see it.
- Some of the fields might be hidden, essentially preventing them from being edited.
- We have to store the value somewhere and old tasks won't have a value.
- Any instructions on the form probably don't apply to edits.
One answer is "force the default, full form". That's not as problematic, but it means we have no ability to create limited access users who see fewer fields.
The answer in this diff is:
- Forms can be marked as "edit forms".
- We take the user to the first edit form they have permission to see, from a master list.
This allows you to create several forms like:
- Advanced Edit Form (say, all fields -- visible to administrators).
- Basic Edit Form (say, no policies -- visible to trusted users).
- Noob Edit Form (say, no policies, priorities, or status -- visible to everyone).
Then you can give everyone access to "noob", some people access to "basic", and a few people access to "advanced".
This might only be part of the answer. In particular, you can still //use// any edit form you can see, so we could do these things in the future:
- Give you an option to switch to a different form if you want.
- Save the form the task was created with, and use that form by default.
If we do pursue those, we can fall back to this behavior if there's a problem with them (e.g., original form doesn't exist or wasn't recorded).
There's also no "reorder" UI yet, that'll be coming in the next diff.
I'm also going to try to probably make the "create" and "edit" stuff a little more consistent / less weird in a bit.
Test Plan: Marked various forms as edit forms or not edit forms, made edits, hit permissions errors, etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14702
Summary:
Ref T9908. Simplify some of the policies here:
- If you can edit an application (currently, always "Administrators"), you can view and edit all of its forms.
- You must be able to edit an application to create new forms.
- Improve some error messages.
- Get about halfway through letting users reorder forms in the "Create" menu if they want to sort by something weird since it'll need schema changes and I can do them all in one go here.
Test Plan:
- Tried to create and edit forms as an unprivileged user.
- Created and edited forms as an administrator.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14700
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. Fixes T5622. This allows you to copy some fields (projects, subscribers, custom fields, some per-application) from another object when creating a new object by passing the `?template=xyz` parameter.
Extend "copy" support to work with all custom fields.
Test Plan:
- Created new pastes, packages, tasks using `?template=...`
- Viewed new template docs page.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5622, T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14699
Summary:
Ref T9908. When there are custom / renamed / policy considerations for applications, respect them in the quick create menu.
This has some performance implications, in that it makes every page slower by two queries (and potentially more, soon), which is quite bad. I have some ideas to mitigate this, but it's not the end of the world to eat these queries for now.
Test Plan: {F1017316}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14693
Summary:
Ref T9908.
- You should not need edit permission on a task in order to comment on it.
- At least for now, ignore any customization in Conduit and Stacked Actions. These UIs always use the full edit form as it's written in the application.
Test Plan:
- Verified a non-editor can now comment on tasks they can see.
- Verified a user still can't use an edit form they can't see.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14691
Summary:
Ref T9132. Fixes T4580. Thhat might actually have been fixed a while ago or something since it describes a buggy/bad interaction which doesn't reproduce for me at HEAD.
This saves and restores all the stacked actions (subscribers, projects, etc) so that you don't lose anything if you close a window by accident.
Test Plan:
Added a bunch of actions in various states, reloaded the page, draft stuck around.
Submitted form, actions didn't stick around anymore.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4580, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14675
Summary:
Ref T9132. This is kind of a mess because the tokenizer rewrite left rendering tokenizers in Javascript a little rough. This causes bugs like icons not showing up on tokens in the "Policy" dialog, which there's a task for somewhere I think.
I think I've fixed it enough that the beahavior is now correct (i.e., icons show up properly), but some of the code is a bit iffy. I'll eventually clean this up properly, but it's fairly well contained for now.
Test Plan:
- Reassigned a task.
- Put a task up for grabs.
- No reassign on closed tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14669
Summary: Ref T9132. This still has a lot of rough edges but the basics seem to work OK.
Test Plan: {F1012627}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14653
Summary:
Ref T9132. Fixes T5031. This approximately implements the plan described in T5031#67988:
When we recieve a preview request, don't write a draft if the form is from a version of the object before the last update the viewer made.
This should fix the race-related (?) zombie draft comments that sometimes show up.
I just added a new object for this stuff to make it easier to do stacked actions (or whatever we end up with) a little later, since I needed to do some schema adjustments anyway.
Test Plan:
- Typed some text.
- Reloaded page.
- Draft stayed there.
- Tried real hard to get it to ghost by submitting stuff in multiple windows and typing a lot and couldn't, although I didn't bother specifically narrowing down the race condition.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5031, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14640
Summary:
Ref T9132. This just replaces the "Add Comment" form in Paste with a generic flow in EditEngine.
No actual field-awareness or action stacking or anything quite yet, but that will come in a bit. This mildly regresses drafts (which don't seem like a big deal for Pastes). I'll hook those up again in the next diff, but I want to build them in a better way that will work with multiple actions in a generic way, and solve T5031.
Big practical advantage here is that applications don't need copy/pasted preview controllers.
Test Plan:
- Saw previews.
- Added comments.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14637
Summary:
Ref T9132. Give most standard custom fields reasonable Conduit support so you can use the new `application.x` endpoints to set them.
Major missing field type is dates, again.
Test Plan: Used Conduit to set various custom fields on a package.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14635
Summary:
Ref T9132. This allows you to prefill custom fields with `?custom.x.y=value`, for most types of custom fields.
Dates (which are substantially more complicated) aren't supported. I'll just do those once the dust settles. Other types should work, I think.
Test Plan:
- Verified custom fields appear on "HTTP Parameters" help UI.
- Used `?x=y` to prefill custom fields on edit form.
- Performed various normal edits.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14634
