Summary:
See PHI725. Ref T13151. These actions are somewhat unusual and I considered different ways to represent them (make them look like "status" transactions; build multiple synthetic transactions) but ultimately landed on the simplest approach of just exposing them more or less as they exist internally.
I haven't included data for any of them. Most don't really have any data, but "accept" does. I'm holding off on providing more data until after T731, which may shake up the internal format.
Test Plan: Applied most of these transactions against a revision, queried for it with `transaction.search`, got distinguishable transactions out.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13151
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19509
Summary:
See <https://twitter.com/HayleyCAnderson/status/988873585363009536>.
Currently, the action dropdown in Differential shows a heavy "X" after "Request Changes" and a heavy checkmark after "Accept Revision".
Although I'm not convinced that the messaging around "Request Changes" is too strong, I do think these marks are out of place in modern Differential. They came from a simpler time when this dropdown had fewer actions, but feel a little weird and inconsistent to me in the modern UI.
Let's try getting rid of them and see how it goes?
Test Plan:
- Viewed these actions in the dropdown, no longer saw the mark icons.
- Grepped for these unicode sequences without getting any other hits.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19405
Summary:
Ref T13130. See PHI483. Currently, "Plan Changes + Draft" uses rules like "Plan Changes", not rules like "Draft", and allows "Accept".
This isn't consistent with how "Draft" and "Accept" work in other cases. Make "Plan Changes + Draft" more like "Draft" for consistency.
Also fix a string that didn't have a natural English version.
Test Plan:
- Added a failing build plan.
- Created a revision.
- Loaded the revision before builds completed, saw a nicer piece of text about "waiting for builds" instead of "waiting for 2 build(s)".
- Builds failed, which automatically demoted the reivsion to "Changes Planned + Draft".
- As the author and as a reviewer, verified all the actions available to me made sense (particularly, no "Accept").
- Abandoned the revision to test "Abandoned + Draft".
- As the author and as a reviewer, verified all the actions available to me made sense.
- Reclaimed the revision, then used "Request Review" to send it to "Needs Review". Verified that actions made sense and, e.g., reviewers could now "Accept" normally.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13130
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19398
Summary:
Depends on D18801. Ref T2543. See PHI229. I missed "Accept" before, but intended to disallow it (like "Reject") since I don't want drafts to be reviewable.
However, "Resign" seems fine to allow? So let's allow that for now.
Test Plan: Was no longer offered "Accept" on draft revisions.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18802
Summary:
Ref T2543. Most actions are not available for drafts.
Authors can "Request Review" (move out of draft to become a normal revision) or "Abandon".
Non-authors can't do anything (maybe we'll let them do something later -- like "Commandeer"? -- if there's a good reason).
Test Plan: Viewed a draft revision as an author and non-author, saw fewer actions available.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18626
Summary:
Ref T2543. Ref T10967. This isn't precisely related to "draft" status, but while I'm churning this stuff anyway, get rid of the old double writes to clean the code up a bit.
These were added in T10967 to make sure the migration was reversible/recoverable, but we haven't seen any issues with it in several months so I believe they can now be removed safely. Nothing has read this table since ~April.
Test Plan: Took various review actions on revisions (accept, reject, resign, comment, etc). If this change is correct, there should be no visible effect.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18398
Summary:
Fixes T12757. Here's a simple repro for this:
- Add a package you own as a reviewer to a revision you're reviewing.
- Open two windows, select "Accept", don't submit the form.
- Submit the form in window A.
- Submit the fomr in window B.
Previously, window B would show an error, because we considered accepting on behalf of the package invalid, as the package had already accepted.
Instead, let repeat-accepts through without complaint.
Some product stuff:
- We could roadblock users with a more narrow validation error message here instead, like "Package X has already been accepted.", but I think this would be more annoying than helpful.
- If your accept has no effect (i.e., everything you're accepting for has already accepted) we currently just let it through. I think this is fine -- and a bit tricky to tailor -- but the ideal/consistent beavior is to do a "no effect" warning like "All the reviewers you're accepting for have already accepted.". This is sufficiently finnicky/rare (and probably not terribly useful/desiable in this specific case)that I'm just punting.
Test Plan: Did the flow above, got an "Accept" instead of a validation error.
Reviewers: chad, lvital
Reviewed By: chad, lvital
Subscribers: lvital
Maniphest Tasks: T12757
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18019
Summary:
Ref T12272. If you own a package which owns "/", this allows you to force-accept package reviews for packages which own sub-paths, like "/src/adventure/".
The default UI looks something like this:
```
[X] Accept as epriestley
[X] Accept as Root Package
[ ] Force accept as Adventure Package
```
By default, force-accepts are not selected.
(I may do some UI cleanup and/or annotate "because you own X" in the future and/or mark these accepts specially in some way, particularly if this proves confusing along whatever dimension.)
Test Plan: {F4314747}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17569
Summary:
Ref T12271. Currenty, when you "Accept" a revision, you always accept it for all reviewers you have authority over.
There are some situations where communication can be more clear if users can accept as only themselves, or for only some packages, etc. T12271 discusses some of these use cases in more depth.
Instead of making "Accept" a blanket action, default it to doing what it does now but let the user uncheck reviewers.
In cases where project/package reviewers aren't in use, this doesn't change anything.
For now, "reject" still acts the old way (reject everything). We could make that use checkboxes too, but I'm not sure there's as much of a use case for it, and I generally want users who are blocking stuff to have more direct accountability in a product sense.
Test Plan:
- Accepted normally.
- Accepted a subset.
- Tried to accept none.
- Tried to accept bogus reviewers.
- Accepted with myself not a reviewer
- Accepted with only one reviewer (just got normal "this will be accepted" text).
{F4251255}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17533
Summary:
To set this up:
- alice accepts a revision.
- Something adds a package or project she has authority over as a reviewer.
- Because alice has already accepted, she can not re-accept, but she should be able to (in order to accept on behalf of the new project or package).
Test Plan:
- Created a revision.
- Accepted as user "dog".
- Added "dog project".
- Re-accepted.
- Could not three-accept.
- Removed "dog project.
- Rejected.
- Added "dog project".
- Re-rejected.
- Could not three-reject.
Reviewers: chad, eadler
Reviewed By: chad, eadler
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17226
Summary: Ref T11114. Ref T10978. These hadn't made it over to EditEngine yet.
Test Plan:
- Took various actions on revisions and commits.
- Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ...` to examine the "Vary Subject", saw it properly generate "[Accepted]", "[Resigned]", etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T10978
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17191
Summary: Ref T11114. Move email/command actions, like "!reject", to modular transactions + editengine.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to pipe "!stuff" to an object, saw appropraite effects in web UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17133
Summary:
Ref T11114. See D17114 for some discussion.
For review actions: accept, reject, resign.
For revision actions, order is basically least-severe to most-severe action pairs: plan changes, request review, close, reopen, abandon, reclaim, commandeer.
Test Plan: Viewed revisions as an author and a reviewer, saw sensible action order within action groups.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17115
Summary:
Ref T11114. Differential has more actions than it once did, and may have further actions in the future.
Make this dropdown a little easier to parse by grouping similar types of actions, like "Accept" and "Reject".
(The action order still needs to be tweaked a bit.)
Test Plan: {F2274526}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: eadler
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17114
Summary:
Ref T11114. Some rough edges, but this largely makes Accept, Reject and Resign work in the new EditEngine comment area.
Ref T11050. This lays a little bit of groundwork for having "resign" mean "I don't want to review this, even if projects or packages I'm a member of need to", not just "remove me personally as a user reviewer".
Test Plan: Accepted, rejected and resigned from revisions without any major state issues.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17113
