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 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:
Ref T9979. This is currently hard-coded but can be done in a generic way.
This has one minor behavioral changes: answer text is no longer included in the question text index in Ponder. I'm not planning to accommodate that for now since I don't want to dig this hole any deeper than I already have. This behavior should be different anyway (e.g., index the answer, then show the question in the results or something).
Test Plan:
- Put a unique word in a Maniphest comment.
- Searched for the word.
- Found the task.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14837
Summary:
Ref 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 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.
- 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.
Let configurations be enabled/disabled. This doesn't do much right now.
Let configurations be marked as default entries in the application "Create" menu. This makes them show up in the application in a dropdown, so you can replace the default form and/or provide several forms.
In Maniphest, we'll do this to provide a menu something like this:
- New Bug Report
- New Feature Request
- ADVANCED TASK CREATION!!11~ (only available for Community members)
Test Plan: {F1005679}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14584
Summary:
Ref T9132. This just makes edited forms do //something//, albeit not anything very useful yet.
You can now edit a form and:
- Retitle it;
- add a preamble (instructions on top of the form); and
- reorder the form's fields.
Test Plan:
{F974632}
{F974633}
{F974634}
{F974635}
{F974636}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14503
Summary:
Ref T9132. This diff doesn't do anything interesting, it just lays the groundwork for more interesting future diffs.
Broadly, the idea here is to let you create multiple views of each edit form. For example, we might create several different "Create Task" forms, like:
- "New Bug Report"
- "New Feature Request"
These would be views of the "Create Task" form, but with various adjustments:
- A form might have additional instructions ("how to file a good bug report").
- A form might have prefilled values for some fields (like particular projects, subscribers, or policies).
- A form might have some fields locked (so they can not be edited) or hidden.
- A form might have a different field order.
- A form might have a limited visibility policy, so only some users can access it.
This diff adds a new storage object (`EditEngineConfiguration`) to keep track of all those customizations and represent "a form which has been configured to look and work a certain way".
This doesn't let these configurations do anything useful/interesting, and you can't access them directly yet, it's just all the boring plumbing to enable more interesting behavior in the future.
Test Plan:
ApplicationEditor forms now let you manage available forms and edit the current form:
{F959025}
There's a new (bare bones) list of all available engines:
{F959030}
And if you jump into an engine, you can see all the forms for it:
{F959038}
The actual form configurations have standard detail/edit pages. The edit pages are themselves driven by ApplicationEditor, of course, so you can edit the form for editing forms.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14453
Summary:
Ref T7708.
This changes things to $viewer->loadHandles where applicable in the durable column render stack. I saw some big wins on my test data like 34 queries => 24 queries on a newly created room as my default thread.
For my test data, the next big perf win would be to change how remarkup rendering works and try to multiload all objects of a certain type in one shot.
e.g. `PhabricatorEmbedFileRemarkupRule` implements `loadObjects` as do all classes which inherit from `PhabricatorObjectRemarkupRule`. This is because `PhabricatorObjectRemarkupRule` implements its `didMarkupText` method using `loadObjects`, and `didMarkupText` gets called per transaction over in `PhabricatorMarkupEngine->process()`. Instead, the `loadObjects` in `didMarkupText` should be hitting some cache, and we should do a bulk load for all `PhabricatorEmbedFileRemarkupRule` that had matches earlier in the rendering stack. ...I think.
Test Plan: carefully looked at "Services" tab in dark console and noted fewer queries with changes post changes versus pre changes
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7708
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12780
Summary:
Ref T4100. Ref T5595.
To support a unified "Projects:" query across all applications, a future diff is going to add a set of "Edge Logic" capabilities to `PolicyAwareQuery` which write the required SELECT, JOIN, WHERE, HAVING and GROUP clauses for you.
With the addition of "Edge Logic", we'll have three systems which may need to build components of query claues: ordering/paging, customfields/applicationsearch, and edge logic.
For most clauses, queries don't currently call into the parent explicitly to get default components. I want to move more query construction logic up the class tree so it can be shared.
For most methods, this isn't a problem, but many subclasses define a `buildWhereClause()`. Make all such definitions protected and consistent.
This causes no behavioral changes.
Test Plan: Ran `arc unit --everything`, which does a pretty through job of verifying this statically.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: yelirekim, hach-que, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4100, T5595
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12453
Summary: Ref T7803. Remove these in favor of more generalized paging and ordering.
Test Plan: Sorted and paged results in various applications.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7803
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12378
Summary:
Ref T2009. Ref T1460. The way Diffusion and Differential load inlines is horrible garbage right now:
- Differential does an ad-hoc query to get the PHIDs, then does a real load to policy check.
- Diffusion completely fakes things. In practice this is not a policy violation, but it's dangerous.
Make TransactionCommentQuery extensible so we can subclass it and get the query building correctly in the right Query layer.
Specifically, the Diffusion and Differential subclasses of this Query will add appropriate `withX()` methods to let us express the query in SQL.
Test Plan: Loaded, previewed, edited, and submitted inlines in Differential and Diffusion
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2009, T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12026
Summary: Ref T4712. This adds pagination. Future diffs will need to deploy `buildTransactionTimeline` everywhere and massage this stuff as necessary if we hit any special cases.
Test Plan: Set page size to "5" to make it need to paginate often. Verified proper transactions loaded in and the javascript actions worked.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4712
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10887
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
Summary:
Ref T3886. Fixes the removed TODO. This also implements the generally reasonable policy "you have to be able to see an object in order to see its transactions". That was implicit before (we never load transactions without loading an object first) but is now explicit.
This fixes bad (nonspecialized) rendering of custom field transactions in Projects, and shortly in Differential, where stories would read "alincoln edited this object." instead of a more specific string.
Test Plan: Viewed a project edit, saw a more specific string. Browed ApplicationTransaction applications.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8273
Summary:
While we mostly have reasonable effective object accessibility when you lock a user out of an application, it's primarily enforced at the controller level. Users can still, e.g., load the handles of objects they can't actually see. Instead, lock the queries to the applications so that you can, e.g., never load a revision if you don't have access to Differential.
This has several parts:
- For PolicyAware queries, provide an application class name method.
- If the query specifies a class name and the user doesn't have permission to use it, fail the entire query unconditionally.
- For handles, simplify query construction and count all the PHIDs as "restricted" so we get a UI full of "restricted" instead of "unknown" handles.
Test Plan:
- Added a unit test to verify I got all the class names right.
- Browsed around, logged in/out as a normal user with public policies on and off.
- Browsed around, logged in/out as a restricted user with public policies on and off. With restrictions, saw all traces of restricted apps removed or restricted.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7367
Summary:
Ref T2217. Swaps batch edits to modern editor.
Also, fix some issues with required fields and viewers being required to render certain standard fields (notably, date).
Test Plan: Made various batch edits, verified they went through properly.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7083
Summary: Ref T603. Killing this class is cool because the classes that replace it are policy-aware. Tried to keep my wits about me as I did this and fixed a few random things along the way. (Ones I remember right now are pulling a query outside of a foreach loop in Releeph and fixing the text in UIExample to note that the ace of hearts if "a powerful" card and not the "most powerful" card (Q of spades gets that honor IMO))
Test Plan: tested the first few changes (execute, executeOne X handle, object) then got real mechanical / careful with the other changes.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, aran, FacebookPOC
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6941
Summary: Ref T3373. Most edits aren't too interesting, put them on a separate history page.
Test Plan: Viewed question page; viewed history page for question and answer.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3373
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6612
Summary:
Apparently I am crazy and didn't test D5537 propertly at all. In particular:
- Currently, the update sends back new "people" and "files" widgets. The "people" widget has a tokenizer, which fatals when the behavior initializes without the widget in the DOM. For now, disable widget updates on replies. I'll fix this in a future diff.
- Currently, we don't update the "last_transaction_id" in the form itself, so the first reply sends back 1 message, the next 2 messages, etc. Update the input.
- The transaction paging doesn't and has never worked, I am crazy. Make it actually work.
Test Plan:
computers are too hard
(also, this is why I hate Javascript)
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5538
Summary: It's dumb to execute a query which we know will return an empty result.
Test Plan: Looked at comment preview with "11", didn't see "1 = 0" in DarkConsole.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5177
Summary:
Allows you to edit or delete comments in appplications which support ApplicationTransactions.
UI/UX stuff:
- The dialogs are rough but I want to do a dialog design pass more generally, @chad has some mocks.
- When you add new mentions via edit, they don't currently count as mentions. I'm not sure what I want to do about this.
- When you edit or delete a comment, we do not publish any notifications about it. I think this is reasonable.
- I didn't separate "delete" out versus "edit"; I assume it will be reasonably intuitive that deleting all the text deletes effectively deletes the comment. I also want to discourage deletion somewhat (we still show the transaction, just show that the comment has been deleted).
Test Plan:
Transaction view, note "Edit" and "Edited" links:
{F26914}
Edit view, has some design issues but I want to do a pass on dialogs in general:
{F26915}
History view:
{F26913}
Reviewers: vrana, btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: vrana
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1082
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D4149
Summary:
Split Pholio's transaction implementation into generic and application-specific parts. Moves us toward generic transactions, with support for:
- Editing and deleting comments.
- Setting visibility of individual comments (I'm not a fan of this feature but we'll see).
I want to move everything to a more generic piece of infrastructure but there's very little they can share right now so adding transactions to, e.g., Paste or Macros (T2157) means massive amounts of similar code.
Tons of work left to do here, but I think it basically works. Here's a screenshot:
{F26820}
Test Plan: Made transactions in Pholio.
Reviewers: btrahan, vrana, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2104
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D4136
