Summary:
Ref T3967. This gives us a reasonable baseline for doing remarkup previews inline in all contexts, and works in weird/constrained context including:
- inline comments;
- conpherence; and
- custom fields.
It would be nicer to go beyond this in contexts like Phame posts, but this is a start, at least.
Test Plan:
{F1040877}
{F1040878}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T3967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14855
Summary: These transactions (when a user subscribes or unsubscribes only themselves) are universally uninteresting.
Test Plan:
- Subscribed/unsubscribed, saw transactions but no feed/mail.
- Commented, got implicitly subscribed, saw only comment in feed/mail, saw both transasctions on task.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14853
Summary:
Ref T9979. There are currently some hacks around Conpherence indexing: it does not really use the fulltext index, but its own specialized index. However, it's kind of hacked up so it can get reindexed by the normal indexing pipeline.
Lift it up into IndexEngine, instead of FulltextEngine. Specifically, the new stuff is going to look like this:
- IndexEngine: Rebuild all indexes.
- ConpherenceIndexExtension: Rebuild thread indexes.
- ProjectMemberIndexExtension: Rebuild project membership views.
- NgramIndexExtension: Rebuild ngram indexes.
- FulltextIndexExtension / FulltextEngine: Rebuild fulltext indexes, a special type of index.
- FulltextCommentExtension: Rebuild comment fulltext indexes.
- FulltextProjectExtension: Rebuild project fulltext indexes.
- etc.
Most of this is at least sort-of-in-place as of this diff, although some of the part in the middle is still pretty rough.
Test Plan:
- Made a unique comment in a Conpherence thread.
- Used `bin/search index --force` to rebuild the index.
- Searched for the comment.
- Found the thread.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14841
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 T9890. Ref T9979. Several adjacent goals:
- The `SearchEngine` vs `ApplicationSearchEngine` thing is really confusing. There are also a bunch of confusing class names and class relationships within the fulltext indexing. I want to rename these classes to be more standard (`IndexEngine`, `IndexEngineExtension`, etc). Rename `SearchIndexer` to `IndexEngine`. A future change will rename `SearchEngine`.
- Add the index locks described in T9890.
- Structure things a little more normally so future diffs can do the "EngineExtension" thing more cleanly.
Test Plan:
Indexing:
- Renamed a task to have a unique word in the title.
- Ran `bin/search index Txxx`.
- Searched for unique word.
- Found task.
Locking:
- Added a `sleep(10)` after the `lock()` call.
- Ran `bin/search index Txxx` in two windows.
- Saw first one lock, sleep 10 seconds, index.
- Saw second one give up temporarily after failing to grab the lock.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9890, T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14834
Summary: Ref T9979. Convert all DestructionEngine behaviors to extensions.
Test Plan:
{F1033244}
Destroyed an object, verifying:
- Herald transcripts were destroyed;
- edges were destroyed;
- flags were destroyed;
- tokens were destroyed;
- transactions were destroyed;
- worker tasks were cancelled.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14832
Summary:
Ref T9979. The general shape of "engine" code feels pretty good, and I plan to move indexing to be more in line with other modern engines, with the ultimate goal of supporting subprojects (T10010) and several intermediate goals.
Before moving indexing, clean up Destruction, since some of the new indexes will need destruction hooks and destruction currently has a lot of `instanceof` stuff that should be easy to fix by applying more modern approaches.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/remove destroy` to destory an Almanac device.
- Verified that properties for the device were destroyed.
- Viewed module panel in UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14831
Summary:
Fixes T10012. The permissions here are little weird: you need edit permission on the //configurations//, not the //engines//. I was checking edit permission on the engines only.
I should possibly make this a bit more consistent, the engine edit permission is just very convenient to use to enforce object create permission right now. I'll likely clean this up after T9789.
Test Plan:
- Tried to reorder forms as a less-privileged user, got proper policy errors.
- Reordered forms normally as a regular user.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Luke081515.2
Maniphest Tasks: T10012
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14824
Summary: Ref T10004. This lost a couple of fields when I rearranged how descriptions work. Restore them.
Test Plan:
- Viewed "Using HTTP Parameters".
- Everything had nice descriptions.
- No more weird phantom/misleading 'comment' transaction in UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14822
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:
At least for now, the "Space" field is just a subfield of the "Visible To" field, so:
- it doesn't get any separate settings; and
- it always uses the "Visible To" settings.
Test Plan:
- Created a form with a hidden view policy field.
- Created stuff with no "you must pick a space" errors.
- Created stuff with a normal form.
- Prefilled "Space" on a noraml form.
- Verified that trying to prefill "Space" on a form with "Visible To" hidden does nothing.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14812
Summary:
Ref T10004. Fixes T9527. Currently, we render two kinds of bad policy/space transactions during object creation.
First, we render a transaction showing a change from the default policy/space to the selected policy/space:
> alice shifted this object from space S1 Default to space S2 Secret.
This is a //good transaction// (it's showing that the default was changed, which could be important for policy stuff!) but it's confusing because it makes it sound like the object briefly existed in space S1, when it did not.
Instead, render this:
> alice created this object in space S2 Secret.
This retains the value (show that the object was created in an unusual space) without the confusion.
Second, when you create a "New Bug Report", we render a transaction like this:
> alice changed the visibility of this task from "All Users" to "Community".
This is distracting and not useful, becasue it's a locked default of the form. This was essentially fixed by D14810. The new behavior is to show this, //only// if the value was changed from the form value:
> alice created this object with visibility "Administrators".
This should reduce confusion, reduce fluff in the default cases, and do a better job of calling out important changes (basically, unusual spaces/policies).
Test Plan:
- Created an edit form with a default space and policies.
- Used that form to create task with:
- same values as form;
- different values from form.
When I changed the form value, I got transactions. When I left it the same, I didn't.
The transactions rendered in the non-confusing "created with ..." variant.
Editing the values created normal transactions with "changed policy from X to Y".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9527, T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14811
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:
See T9905#148799. The CommentEditField generated empty comment transactions; these are dropped later, but before they are dropped they would trigger implicit CCs.
The implicit CC rule should probably be narrower, but we shouldn't be generating these transactions in the first place.
Test Plan: No longer implicitly CC'd on a task when doing something minor like changing projects.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: avivey
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14795
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 T9964. Fixes T9752. Provides API access to enable/disable packages and change their paths.
Test Plan:
- Changed status via Conduit.
- Changed paths via Conduit.
- Tried to change a path use a nonsense/bogus repository PHID, got an error.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9752, T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14790
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 T9964. Add a `setIsConduitOnly()` method so we can mark a field as API-only.
Test Plan:
- Created and edited pastes via web UI (no status field).
- Adjusted status via web UI action.
- Adjusted status via Conduit API.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14788
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 T9908. These meta-edit-engines are used to generate the main editengine UIs, but they're also editable.
Fix an exception when trying to edit the meta editengine.
Test Plan: Edited editengineconfiguration editengine.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14783
Summary:
Ref T9964. We have various kinds of secondary data on objects (like subscribers, projects, paste content, Owners paths, file attachments, etc) which is somewhat slow, or somewhat large, or both.
Some approaches to handling this in the API include:
- Always return all of it (very easy, but slow).
- Require users to make separate API calls to get each piece of data (very simple, but inefficient and really cumbersome to use).
- Implement a hierarchical query language like GraphQL (powerful, but very complex).
- Kind of mix-and-match a half-power query language and some extra calls? (fairly simple, not too terrible?)
We currently mix-and-match internally, with `->needStuff(true)`. This is not a general-purpose, full-power graph query language like GraphQL, and it occasionally does limit us.
For example, there is no way to do this sort of thing:
$conpherence_thread_query = id(new ConpherenceThreadQuery())
->setViewer($viewer)
// ...
->setNeedMessages(true)
->setWhenYouLoadTheMessagesTheyNeedProfilePictures(true);
However, we almost never actually need to do this and when we do want to do it we usually don't //really// want to do it, so I don't think this is a major limit to the practical power of the system for the kinds of things we really want to do with it.
Put another way, we have a lot of 1-level hierarchical queries (get pictures or repositories or projects or files or content for these objects) but few-to-no 2+ level queries (get files for these objects, then get all the projects for those files).
So even though 1-level hierarchies are not a beautiful, general-purpose, fully-abstract system, they've worked well so far in practice and I'm comfortable moving forward with them in the API.
If we do need N-level queries in the future, there is no technical reason we can't put GraphQL (or something similar) on top of this eventually, and this would represent a solid step toward that. However, I suspect we'll never need them.
Upshot: I'm pretty happy with "->needX()" for all practical purposes, so this is just adding a way to say "->needX()" to the API.
Specifically, you say:
```
{
"attachments": {
"subscribers": true,
}
}
```
...and get back subscriber data. In the future (or for certain attachments), `true` might become a dictionary of extra parameters, if necessary, and could do so without breaking the API.
Test Plan:
- Ran queries to get attachments.
{F1025449}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14772
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: I wrote this earlier in D14680 but have now realized that it's the same sentence twice when read carefully.
Test Plan: read more carefully
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14687
Summary:
Fixes T7250. Currently, if a display group of transactions (multiple transactions by the same author in a short period of time with no intervening comments) has several transactions of similar strength (e.g., several status change transactions) we can end up displaying them in reverse chronological order, which is confusing.
Instead, make sure transactions of the same type/strength are always in logical order.
Test Plan:
- Merged a task into another task, then reopened the merged task.
- Before patch: merge/reopen showed in wrong order.
{F1014954}
- After patch: merge/reopen show in correct order.
{F1014955}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7250
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14680
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. We currently have an old preview/draft behavior and a new actions behavior.
Let the actions behavior do drafts/previews too, so we can eventually throw away the old thing.
This is pretty much just copying the old behavior into the new one, but with a few tweaks. The major change is that we submit all the stacked actions behavior now, so the preview reflects everything the change will do (and, soon, we can save it in the draft in a consistent way).
Also includes one hack-fix that I'll clean up at some point.
Test Plan: Added a bunch of stacked actions and observed meaningful previews.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14672
Summary:
Ref T9132. Open to discussion here since it's mostly product stuff, but here's my gut on this:
- Change Maniphest behavior to stop assigning tasks if they're unassigned when closed. I think this behavior often doesn't make much sense. We'll probably separately track "who closed this" in T4434 eventually.
- Only add the actor as a subscriber if they comment, like in other applications. Previously, we added them as a subscriber for other types of changes (like priority and status changes). This is more consistent, but open to retaining the old behavior or some compromise between the two.
- Retain the "when changing owner, subscribe the old owner" behavior.
Test Plan:
- Added a comment, got CC'd.
- Changed owners, saw old owner get CC'd.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14670
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. Supports selects in stacked actions and adds "Change Status" + "Change Priority".
Test Plan: Changed status and priority from stacked actions.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14667
Summary:
Ref T9132. Only allow a task to have a single owner in the UI.
In Conduit, make this field appear and behave as "phid" instead of "list<phid>".
Test Plan: Edited a task with new fancy form, got limited to one owner. Assigned/unassigned. Used Conduit to assign/unassign.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14666
Summary: Ref T9132. This makes the "Quote" action on comments work properly in these applications.
Test Plan: Quoted text in each application.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14665
Summary: Ref T9132. Shhh this never happened shhhhhhh.
Test Plan: Selected multiple actions, saw them add at the bottom.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14664
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
