Summary: These could cause F442758.
Test Plan: {F442779}
Reviewers: btrahan, joshuaspence
Reviewed By: joshuaspence
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13042
Summary:
Ref T7447. Implements per-viewer comment hiding. Once a comment is obsolete or uninteresting, you can hide it completely.
This is sticky per-user.
My hope is that this will strike a better balance between concerns than some of the other approaches (conservative porting, summarization, hide-all).
Specifically, this adds a new action here:
{F435621}
Clicking it completely collapses the comment into a small icon on the previous line, and saves the comment state as hidden for you:
{F435626}
You can click the icon to reveal all hidden comments below the line.
Test Plan:
- Hid comments.
- Showed comments.
- Created, edited, deleted and submitted comments.
- Used Diffusion comments (hiding is not implemented there yet, but I'd plan to bring it there eventually if it works out in Differential).
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: jparise, yelirekim, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7447
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13009
Summary:
Fixes T6956. Before this change, we called PhabricatorUser::getOmnipotentUser in the various delete methods to query the data. Now, we use $engine->getViewer(), since its always a good thing to have less calls to PhabricatorUser::getOmnipotentUser thrown around the codebase.
I used the "codemod" tool to audit the existing calls to PhabricatorDestructorEngine (all of them) so ostensibly this gets all the spots. If I missed something though, its still going to work, so this change is very low risk.
Test Plan: ./bin/remove destroy P1; visit P1 and get a 404
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6956
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12866
Summary: Use `__CLASS__` instead of hard-coding class names. Depends on D12605.
Test Plan: Eyeball it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: hach-que, Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12806
Summary:
Ref T7447. Fixes T7600. This likely needs significant adjustment, but implements content-aware comment porting for line changes.
Specifically, this moves lines around to adjust their position considering added and removed lines between the diffs and across rebases.
It does not try to do any actual content (line against line) matching.
Test Plan:
- Unit tests.
- Poking around in the web UI seems to generate mostly reasonable-ish results?
- This may be a huge step backward in some cases that I just haven't hit.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: yelirekim, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7600, T7447
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12741
Summary: Ref T7776. This could get better, but I think I got most of the big stuff. It's ~4x faster now.
Test Plan:
Before:
{F393338}
After:
{F393339}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7776
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12730
Summary: See D12702.
Test Plan: Made something a link and clicked it, seemed to work OK.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: yelirekim, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12703
Summary:
Ref T7447. Ref T7870.
When a ghostly inline appears on the page, the timeline isn't currently aware that it's present, so it links elsewhere.
Instead, apply adjustments before rendering the timeline.
Ref T5030. This makes the behaviors in T5030 irrelevant most of the time.
Test Plan:
Before:
{F378106}
After:
- Inlines visible on page are linked directly.
- Inlines which we can't port (e.g., on files not present on current page) are still linked off-page.
- Used "Show Older" to page through and verify consistent rendering.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: yelirekim, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5030, T7870, T7447
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12497
Summary:
Ref T7447. This ports comments forward and backward in the best case:
- The old comment is on a changeset with the same filename.
- The old and new files are pretty much the same, line-for-line.
This will fail to port a lot of comments around and probably port a lot of comments into goofy places. We can see how bad it is in practice.
Errata:
- Design is me cobbling something together, probably worth tweaking.
- "Old Comment" should, at a minimum, say "Newer Comment" sometimes, or we should come up with some better name for this stuff.
Test Plan: {F377214}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: johnny-bit, yelirekim, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7447
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12484
Summary:
Ref T7447. This class is currently a big mess with a lot of `withWeirdSpecialThingUsedInOnePlace()` type qualifiers.
Try to generalize/normalize it a bit.
Test Plan:
- Viewed inline comments.
- Created a new inline comment.
- Edited an inline comment.
- Marked an inline comment complete.
- Deleted, then undeleted an inline comment.
- Previewed inline comments.
- Viewed drafts as another user, verified they don't show up.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: yelirekim, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7447
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12483
Summary:
Ref T1266. We won't detect a move/copy if fewer than 3 lines are changed.
However, you may move a block like:
Complicated Line A
Trivial Line B
Complicated Line C
...where "Trivial Line B" is something like a curly brace. If you move this block somewhere that happened to previously have a similar trivial curly brace line, we won't be able to find 3 contiguous added lines in order to detect the copy/move.
Instead, consider both changed and unchanged lines when trying to find contiguous blocks. This allows us to detect across gaps where lines were not actually changed.
This new algorithm may be too liberal (for example, we may end up incorrectly identifying moved/copied code before or after changed lines, not just between changed lines), but we can keep an eye on it and tweak it. The algorithm is better factored and better covered, now.
Test Plan:
- Added a unit test for this case.
- Spot-checked a handful of diffs and generally saw behavior that made sense and looked better than before.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1266
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12146
Summary:
Ref T1266. This prepares to fix case (2) on T1266 by improving the robustness of hunk parsing.
In particular, the copy detection code abuses this API because it isn't currently expressive or flexible enough.
Make it more flexible and cover it exhaustively.
I'll move callsites to the new stuff in upcoming revisions.
Test Plan: Unit tests.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1266
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12144
Summary:
Ref T1460. When a revision author updates/comments/etc on a revision, publish all their checkmarks.
This doesn't handle Diffusion/audits yet.
Test Plan: {F346870}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: yelirekim, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12126
Summary:
Ref T1460. This just barely works, but throwing it up in case any of it sounds mechanically crazy before we build integrations/UI/etc.
Specifically, these are the behaviors:
- You can mark your own draft comments as "done" before you submit them. The intent is to let reviewers mark their stuff advisory/minor/not-important before they submit it, to hint to authors that they don't expect the feedback to necessarily be addressed (maybe it's a joke, maybe it's just discussion, maybe it's "consider..").
- You can mark others' published comments as "done" if you're the revision/commit author. The intent is to keep this lightweight by not requiring an audit trail of who marked what done when. If anyone could mark anything done, we'd have to have some way to show who marked stuff.
- When you mark stuff done (or unmark it), it goes into a "draft" state, where you see the change but others don't see it yet. The intent is twofold:
- Be consistent with how inlines work.
- Allow us to publish a "epriestley updated this revision + epriestley marked 15 inlines as done" story later if we want. This seems more useful than publishing 15 "epriestley marked one thing as done" stories.
- The actual bit where done-ness publishes isn't implemented.
- UI is bare bones.
- No integration with the rest of the UI yet.
Test Plan: Clicked some checkboxes.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: paulshen, chasemp, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12033
Summary:
Ref T2009. Ref T1460.
Fixes T2618. When users hit "Delete" on inline comments, delete immediately and offer them "Undo". If they delete indirectly (e.g., by clicking "Delete" from the preview at the bottom of the page), we still prompt them, because the "Undo" action either won't be available or may not be easy to find. This is a "refdelete".
Fixes T6464. This was just a mess. Make it not as much of a mess. It should work now. Pretty sure.
Fixes T4999. We did not refresh these links often enough to find targets for them, so they could race with content. Reevaluate them after loading new changes.
Test Plan:
- Deleted and undid deletion of inlines from main view and preview.
- Clicked "View" on inlines.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6464, T4999, T2618, T1460, T2009
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12032
Summary:
Ref T1460. Ref T2618.
When publishing a draft inline, mark the inline it replies to (if any) as replied to.
Also, don't load deleted comments as drafts (sets the stage for T2618).
I'll make an effort to clean up the loading mess here in the next revision, and find some more appropriate home for the shared code.
Test Plan: Made and replied to comments in Differential and Diffusion. Saw comments get marked as "Has Replies" and "Is Reply".
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2618, T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12025
Summary:
Ref T1460. Track and store which comments are threaded replies to other comments, vs merely appearing on the same lines.
This doesn't actually write `hasReplies` yet, since that needs to happen when we un-draft comments on submission.
Test Plan: Made inline comments in Differential and Diffusion, including replies. Replies were marked as "Is Reply".
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12017
Summary:
This is a pain to test, but we do a lot of needless "X committed thing (authored by X)" right now.
I think that's because we compare two handle links here, and they're never the same, even if they're both links to the same object.
Instead, compare the author and committer more carefully.
Test Plan: Will do it live.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11635
Summary: In Maniphest, we say "X closed <task> by committing <commit>". In Differential, we currently say "X closed <revision> by commit <commit>", which sounds nongrammatical to me.
Test Plan: grammar'd
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11544
Summary: CLosed is a pretty important state and black tends to blend in a bit. This bumps to an alternate color to improve ability to scan and know state of objects.
Test Plan:
Review a number of closed objects. I will follow up with another diff on 'Archived' colors.
{F261895}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11222
Summary: Modernize remaining edges to subclass `PhabricatorEdgeType`. Largely based on D11045.
Test Plan: Browsed around and performed various actions include subscribing, unsubscribing and watching.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11116
Summary:
Removes an unused PhabricatorFeedStory Parameter from all getTitleForFeed() and getApplicationTransactionTitleForFeed() functions.
Ref D11088 Ref T6545
Test Plan: ran all unit tests and viewed some dashboard feeds
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6545
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11146
Summary: Modernize Differential edges to subclass `PhabricatorEdgeType`. Largely based on D11045.
Test Plan: From previous experience, these changes are fairly trivial and safe. I poked around a little to make sure things looked reasonably okay.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, Krenair, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11074
Summary: Fixes T6790. Turn the old method into "new" (old signature) and "newEphemeral". Deploy "newEphemeral" as many places as possible; basically places we are not in the Differential application *and* have no intentions of ever saving the diff. These callsites are also all places we are just trying to get some changesets at the end of the day.
Test Plan: set differential application policy to 'administrators only'. viewed a commit in diffusion and it worked without any errors! i'm just using my thinkin' noodle on the other code paths.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6790
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11020
Summary: Fixes T6699. We need to "loadInlineComments" consistently, though for an unexpected reason - this mutates the $changesets to include all $changesets that have an associated inline comment, which is necessary to make them render properly.
Test Plan: Took a diff with inline comments and updated it, noting the inline comments disappeared. applied this patch and the inlines reappeared.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6699
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10935
Summary: Fixes T6693.
Test Plan:
Made a bunch of comments on a diff with differential, being sure to leave inlines here and there. This reproduced the issue in T6693. With this patch this issue no longer reproduces!
Successfully "showed older changes" in Maniphest too.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6693
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10931
Summary:
Ref T4712. Specifically...
- Differential
- needed getApplicationTransactionViewObject() implemented
- Audit
- needed getApplicationTransactionViewObject() implemented
- Repository
- one object needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true)
- Ponder
- BONUS BUG FIX - leaving a comment on an answer had a bad redirect URI
- both PonderQuestion and PonderAnswer needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true) on both "history" controllers
- left a "TODO" on buildAnswers on the question view controller, which is non-standard and should be re-written eventually
- Phortune
- BONUS BUG FIX - fix new user "createNewAccount" code to not fatal
- PhortuneAccount, PhortuneMerchant, and PhortuneCart needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true) on Account view, merchant view, and cart view controller
- Fund
- Legalpad
- Nuance
- NuanceSource needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- Releeph (this product is kind of a mess...)
- HACKQUEST - had to manually create an arcanist project to even be able to make a "product" and get started...!
- BONUS BUG FIX - make sure to "setName" on product edit
- ReleephProject (should be ReleepProduct...?), ReleephBranch, and ReleepRequest needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- Harbormaster
- HarbormasterBuildable, HarbormasterBuild, HarbormasterBuildPlan, and HarbormasterBuildStep all needed PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface implemented
- setShouldTerminate(true) all over the place
Test Plan: foreach application, viewed the timeline(s) and made sure they still rendered
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4712
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10925
Summary: I think this was a "hacked" sub thing that never got updated when we switched to a real editor? I am not 100% sure how these methods are used, so please let me know if I should expand my test plan. Fixes T6659.
Test Plan: made a diff from the web ui, looked up the phid from mysql, ran bin/remove destroy <phid>, and it worked!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6659
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10911
Summary: Fixes T6152, T6237. This introduces a viewPolicy column to the DifferentialDiff, and re-jiggers the DifferentialDiff policy implementation such that things behave as before once associated with a revision, else use the DifferentialDiff policy column value.
Test Plan: made a diff with a non-standard view policy and noted that policy was still selected in the revision step. arc lint.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6237, T6152
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10875
Summary: Ref T6237. This sets us up for some future work like T6152, T6200 and generally cleaning up this workflow a bit. Tried to do as little as possible so not exposing transaction view yet. (Though that timeline is going to be a little funky in the common case of just the lone create transaction.)
Test Plan: made a diff from web ui and it worked. made a herald rule to block certain diffs then tried to make such a diff and saw UI letting me know i was blocked
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6237
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10869
Summary:
I am not sure how valuable this is *as is* - I think it needs different explanations for what happened in mercurial or subversion? I do not know what those explanations are.
Made an error in D10485 - the $hashes that were saved is an array of objects, so it ends up turning into garbage via the wonders of serialization and de-serialization. Fix that by explicitly saving the tree hash.
I would like to make this work for the other VCS types we support, add the "undo / nope" button and call it fixed.
Ref T3686.
Test Plan: clicked "explan why" and saw why
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5693, T3686
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10489
Summary:
Ref T1191. Now that the whole database is covered, we don't need to do as much work to build expected schemata. Doing them database-by-database was helpful in converting, but is just reudndant work now.
Instead of requiring every application to build its Lisk objects, just build all Lisk objects.
I removed `harbormaster.lisk_counter` because it is unused.
It would be nice to autogenerate edge schemata, too, but that's a little trickier.
Test Plan: Database setup issues are all green.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T1191
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10620
Summary:
Ref T1191. Ref T6203. While generating expected schemata, I ran into these columns which seem to have sketchy nullability.
- Mark most of them for later resolution (T6203). They work fine today and don't need to block T1191. Changing them can break the application, so we can't autofix them.
- Forgive a couple of them that are sort-of reasonable or going to get wiped out.
Test Plan: Saw 94 remaining warnings.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1191, T6203
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10593
Summary: Fixes T6201. This stuff didn't fully get updated for ApplicationTransactions. Get it working again (notably, make inline comment text publish) and clean it up a little bit.
Test Plan:
- Published a Differential feed story into Asana with comment text.
- Pulbished a Diffusion feed story into Asana with comment text.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6201
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10584
Summary:
Ref T1191. This lays some groundwork for generating the expected schemata, so we can compare them to the actual schemata and produce a meaningful diff.
- In general, each application will subclass `PhabricatorConfigSchemaSpec` and provide a definition of the tables it expects.
- This class has helper methods to mostly-automatically build table definitions for Lisk and (in the future) edges.
- When building expected schema, we specify a "data type", like "epoch". This is the type of data the application stores in the column, from the application's point of view. The SchemaSpec converts this into the best avilable storage type: for example, "text" will translate to `utf8mb4` if it's availalbe, or `binary` if not. This gives us a layer of indirection to insulate us from craziness.
Test Plan: See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1191
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10497
Summary:
Implements a new transaction - still TYPE_ACTION - but using a new DifferentialAction::ACTION_COMMIT_CLOSE. Augment rendering as necessary to display this new transaction. Saves enough information so T3686 is possible but stops short of implementing a popup to display this information. Fixes T5875. Ref T3686.
One small display oddity - this new transaction now renders at the top of the transaction group whereas when it was a comment it was on the bottom. I think this is basically okay but if not how fix? (Playing with the "strength" of these actions will mess up the email too?)
Test Plan: made a diff X that fixed task Y. committed. checked diff X, task Y, and the commit pages for proper transactions and all looked good.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T3686, T5875
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10485
Summary: Fixes T4036. Now if you say something on diff X like "This reminds me of Tx and Dy and commitHashFoo and Px." each of those objects gets a little visible transaction that the mention occurred. No feed, email, or notifications.
Test Plan: made a comment like above and verified transactions. also submitted a diff that "Fixes Tx" and Tx did not get the transaction as expected.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: joshuaspence, epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T4036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10451
