Summary:
Ref T11593. When you call a `*.search` method like `maniphest.search`, we don't currently validate that all the constraints you pass are recognized.
I think there were two very weak arguments for not doing this:
- It makes compatibility in `arc` across versions slightly easier: if we add a new constraint, we could add it to `arc` but also do client-side filtering for a while.
- Conduit parameter types //could//, in theory, accept multiple inputs or optional/alias inputs.
These reasons are pretty fluff and T11593 is a concrete issue caused by not validating. Just validate instead.
Test Plan:
- Made a `maniphest.search` call with a bogus constraint, got an explicit error about the bad constraint.
- Made a `maniphest.search` call with a valid constraint (`"ids"`).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11593
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16507
Summary:
Ref T11473. If you write a method like `get_stuff(ids)` and then call it with an empty list of IDs, you can end up passing an empty constraint to Conduit.
If you run a `*.search` method with such a constraint, like this one:
```
{
"ids": []
}
```
...we have three possible beahviors:
# Treat it like the user passed no constraint (basically, ignore the constraint).
# Respect the constraint (return no results).
# Error.
Currently, we do (1). However, this is pretty confusing and I think clearly the worst option, since it means `get_stuff(array())` in client code will often tend to return a ton of results.
We could do (2) instead, but this is also sort of confusing (it may not be obvious why nothing matched, even though it's an application bug) and I think most reasonable client code should be doing an `if ($ids)` test: this test makes clients a little more complicated, but they can save a network call, and I think they often need to do this test anyway (for example, to show the user a different message).
This implements (3), and just considers these to be errors: this is the least tricky behavior, it's consistent with what we do in PHP, makes fairly good sense, and the only cost for this is that client code may need to be slightly more complex, but this slightly more complex code is usually better code.
Test Plan: Ran Conduit `*.search` queries with `"ids":[]` and `"phids":[]`, got sensible errors instead of runaway result sets.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11473
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16396
Summary:
Fixes T11375. Some validation code was mishandling raw epoch timestamps.
For numeric values larger than 29999999 (e.g., 2999-12-25, christmas 2999), assume the value is a timestamp.
Test Plan: Used `maniphest.search` to query for `modifiedStart`, got a better result set and saw the `dateModified` constraint in the query.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11375
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16326
Summary: Ref T10512. This is fairly bare-bones but appears to work.
Test Plan: Queried all users, queried some stuff by constraints.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10512
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15959
Summary:
Fixes T10011.
- Modernize searching for buildables.
- Prepare for `harbormaster.buildable.search`.
- Allow users to query by status (see T10011).
- Collapse the four weird "commit / diff / revision / repository" fields into two slightly less weird fields with more UI hinting?
Test Plan: {F1131918}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Luke081515.2
Maniphest Tasks: T10011
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15356
Summary: Fixes T10411. Ref T10246. There are probably still some rough edges with this, but replace the old-school endpoints with modern ones so we don't unprototype with deprecated stuff.
Test Plan:
- Made a bunch of calls to the new endpoints with various constraints/attachments.
- Created and edited services, devices, interfaces, bindings, and properties on everything.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10246, T10411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15329
Summary:
Ref T9964. I added several hacks to get these working. Clean them up and pull this into a proper extension.
The behavior in the web UI is:
- they work in all applications; but
- they only show up in the UI if a value is specified.
So if you visit `/view/?ids=1,2` you get the field, but normally it's not present. We could refine this later. I'm going to add documentation about how to prefill these forms regardless, which should make this discoverable by reading the documentation.
There's one teensey weensey hack: in the API, I push these fields to the top of the table. That one feels OK, since it's purely a convenience/display adjustment.
Test Plan: Queried by IDs, reviewed docs.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14769
Summary: Ref T9964. I left a couple of these unsupported for now since they're weird in some way.
Test Plan: {F1024031}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14767
Summary:
Ref T9964. Fill in more parameter types and descriptions.
(No date support yet since it's a bit more involved.)
Test Plan: {F1024022}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14766
Summary: Ref T9964. This fills in types and descriptions for ApplicationSearch fields in Paste.
Test Plan:
Got this nice table now:
{F1023999}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14765
Summary:
Ref T9964. I want to show users what we're expecting in "constraints", and let constraints like "authors=epriestley" work to make things easier.
I'm generally very happy with the "HTTPParameterType" stuff from EditEngine, so add a parallel set of "ConduitParameterType" classes. These are a little simpler than the HTTP ones, but have a little more validation logic.
Test Plan:
This is really just a proof of concept; some of these fields are now filled in:
{F1023845}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14763
Summary:
Ref T9964. Adds a new-style "owners.search" endpoint, and an extension for customfields.
Puts enough indirection in place to give us nice, consistent "custom.key" user-facing keys instead of "std:custom:owners:na0shf9a8dfdsafl" junk.
Test Plan:
- Searched Owners via API.
- Searched by ID.
- Ordered by custom fields.
- Reviewed API docs.
- Used normal search with ordering.
- Viewed custom field values in search results.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14758
Summary:
Ref T9964. See that task for some context and discussion.
Ref T7715, which has the bigger picture here.
Basically, I want Conduit read endpoints to be full-power, ApplicationSearch-driven endpoints, so that applications can:
- Write one EditEngine and get web + conduit writes for free.
- Write one SearchEngine and get web + conduit reads for free.
I previously made some steps toward this, but this puts more of the structure in place.
Test Plan:
Viewed API console endpoint and read 20 pages of docs:
{F1021961}
Made various calls: with query keys, constraints, pagination, and limits.
Viewed new {nav Config > Modules} page.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14743
Summary: Move some `PhabricatorSearchField` subclasses to be adjacent to the application to which they belong. This seems generally better to me than lumping them all together in the `src/applications/search/field/` directory. I was also wondering if it makes sense to rename these subclasses as `PhabricatorXSearchField` rather than `PhabricatorSearchXField` (as per T5655), but wasn't really sure if these objects are meant to be search-fields, or just fields belonging to the #search application.
Test Plan: N/A.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13374
Summary: Ref T7950, Refactor Calendar Search, and implement Projects on events
Test Plan: Verify that all queries in Calendar search still work, and that events can now have associated Projects that you can search by in Calendar Search.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T7950
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13393
Summary:
If you have a saved query with an order alias, we currently apply the order correctly but don't show the right value in the UI.
Map any saved value to the canoncial value when rendering the control.
Test Plan: Added some `var_dump()` and verified order key was getting mapped forward correctly.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13227
Summary: Ref T8441. Ref T7715. I'm primarily clearing callers to `saveQueryOrder()` so I can get rid of it.
Test Plan: Used all Macro search features.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13194
Summary:
Ref T8441. Ref T7715. Automatically generate a modern "Order" control in ApplicationSearch for engines which fully support SearchField.
Notably, this allows the standard "Order" control to automatically support custom field orders. We do this in Maniphest today, but in an ad-hoc way.
Test Plan: Performed order-by queries in Almanac (Services), Pholio, Files, People, Projects, and Paste.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13193
Summary:
Ref T8441. Ref T7715. For modern Query classes, automatically make subscriber queries and SearchField integrations work.
In particular, we can just drive this query with EdgeLogic and don't need to do anything specific on these Query classes beyond making sure they're implemented in a way that picks up all of the EdgeLogic clauses.
Test Plan:
- Searched for subscribers in Pholio, Files, Paste, and Projects.
- Searched for all other fields in Projects to check that Query changes are OK.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13191
Summary:
Ref T8441. Ref T7715. This is mostly about getting SearchFields + CustomFields working.
(This includes a couple of SearchFields which aren't used quite yet.)
Test Plan:
- Used all search controls.
- Defined custom fields and searched for them.
- Created an old saved search which searches on custom fields on master, switched to this patch, search worked exaclty as written.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13189
Summary: Ref T8441. Does what it says, provided other conditions (like using the new SearchField stuff) are fulfilled.
Test Plan:
{F473836}
{F473837}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13171
Summary: Ref T8441. Ref T7715. Let SearchFields do some value massaging before buiding queries so we don't have to work as hard in each SearchEngine. Particularly, they can handle evaluateTokens() from Tokenizers.
Test Plan: Paste automatically gained access to `viewer()`, etc.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13170
Summary:
Ref T8441. Ref T7715. Add a layer of indirection to fields in search engines. This will allow us to:
- Simplify SearchEngine code, which has collected a lot of duplication around expressing what is effectively field types.
- Automatically add fields like "Spaces" and "Projects" (primary driver for T8441).
- Reorder or hide fields (not sure if we really want to do this, but it seems plausible, and this will let us play around with it, at least).
- Drive Conduit Query methods via SearchEngines, so the same code specifies both the search UI and the `application.query` endpoint (primary driver in T7715).
Test Plan:
- Searched for stuff in Paste, everything behaved exaclty like it used to (except that I removed the "no language" checkbox, which seemed like fluff from a bygone era).
- Searched for stuff in other applications, saw no changes.
- Hit date field errors.
- Used query strings to specify values.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T8441
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13169
