Summary: Ref T13025. This makes limits (for fields like "Assign To") work in the bulk editor, so you can't type "Assign to: x, y, z" anymore.
Test Plan: Hit limit for "Assign to" and a custom project field. No limit for "Add subscribers".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18888
Summary:
See PHI173. Currently, Herald has an "Assign to" action for tasks, and you can specify custom fields with datasource values (like users or projects) that have a limit (like 1 "Owner", or 12 "Jury Members").
Herald doesn't support these limits right now, so you can write `[ Assign to ][ X, Y, Z ]`. This just means "Assign to X", but make it more clear by actually enforcing the limit in the UI.
Test Plan:
- Created a "projects" custom field with limit 1.
- Tried to create actions that 'assign to' or 'set custom field to' more than one thing, got helpfully rebuffed by the UI.
- Created an "add subscribers" action with more than one value.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18887
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/files-created-from-repository-contents-slightly-over-one-chunk-in-size-are-truncated-to-exactly-one-chunk-in-size/988/1>. Three issues here:
- When we finish reading `git cat-file ...` or whatever, we can end up with more than one chunk worth of bytes left in the internal buffer if the read is fast. Use `while` instead of `if` to make sure we write the whole buffer.
- Limiting output with `setStdoutSizeLimit()` isn't really a reliable way to limit the size if we're also reading from the buffer. It's also pretty indirect and confusing. Instead, just let the `FileUploadSource` explicitly implement a byte limit in a straightforward way.
- We weren't setting the time limit correctly on the main path.
Overall, this could cause >4MB files to "write" as 4MB files, with the rest of the file left in the UploadSource buffer. Since these files were technically under the limit, they could return as valid. This was intermittent.
Test Plan:
- Pushed a ~4.2MB file.
- Reloaded Diffusion a bunch, sometimes saw the `while/if` buffer race and produce a 4MB file with a prompt to download it. (Other times, the buffer worked right and the page just says "this file is too big, sorry").
- Applied patches.
- Reloaded Diffusion a bunch, no longer saw bad behavior or truncated files.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18885
Summary:
See PHI287. Currently, you can't get very much information about a task in the worker queue from the web UI.
This is largely intentional (e.g., it's bad if we let you inspect the content of a "send an administrator's password reset email" task), and a lot of the data is task-class specific so it would be a lot of work to expose it, but we can add one useful piece of information pretty easily: for tasks with an `objectPHID` that points at a valid object that's visible to the user, tell the user which object the task is associated with.
Test Plan: {F5386562}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18890
Summary: See PHI292. This is just a generalization of D18851: feed stories have the same issue as mail. Don't hide "requested a review" in either mail or feed.
Test Plan:
- Enable prototypes.
- No harbormaster builds.
- Create a revision.
- Pre-patch: no feed story.
- Post-patch: feed story.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18886
Summary:
Fixes T13040. To reproduce:
- View a file with blame enabled, where some line has an associated revision (say, `D123`).
- Edit `D123` so it exists and is a valid revision, but the viewer can't see it.
- Reload the page.
Instead, only add revisions to the map if we actually managed to load them.
Test Plan: Page no longer fatals.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13040
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18884
Summary:
Fixes T13042. This hooks up the new "silent" mode from D18882 and makes it actually work.
The UI (where we tell you to go run some command and then reload the page) is pretty clumsy, but should solve some problems for now and can be cleaned up eventually. The actual mechanics (timeline aggregation, Herald interaction, etc.) are on firmer ground.
Test Plan:
- Made a normal bulk edit, got mail and feed stories.
- Made a silent bulk edit, no mail and no feed.
- Saw "Silent Edit" marker in timeline for silent edits:
{F5386245}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18883
Summary:
Ref T13042. This adds a "silent" edit mechanism which suppresses feed stories, email, and notifications.
The other behaviors here are:
- The transactions are marked as "silent" so we can render a hint in the UI in the future to make it clear to users that they aren't missing email.
- If the editor uses Herald, mail rules are suppressed so they don't fire incorrectly (this mostly affects "the first time this rule matches, send me an email" rules: without this, they'd match "the first time" on the bulk edit, not send email, then never match again since they already matched).
- If the edit queues additional edits, those are applied silently too.
This doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) actually change any behavior since you can't apply silent edits yet.
Test Plan:
Somewhat theoretical, since this isn't reachable yet. Should get meaningful testing in an upcoming change.
Did a bit of var_dump() / debug poking to attempt to verify that nothing too crazy is happening.
Viewed and edited objects, no changes in behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18882
Summary:
Ref T13042. This is a very, very old policy-violating option from yesteryear which supported build systems publishing updates by adding comments to revisions, without sending email about it.
Harbormaster has served this role for a long time and this is policy-violating in the general case (it allows attackers to act in secret).
Test Plan: Grepped for affected symbols.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18881
Summary: Ref T13025. We're getting kind of a lot of actions, so put them in nice groups so they're easier to work with.
Test Plan: {F5386038}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18880
Summary: Ref T13025. Fixes T5689. A straightforward change!
Test Plan: Used the bulk editor to modify a custom "select" field like the one in T5689.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T5689
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18879
Summary:
Ref T13025. This is some minor technical stuff: make the "select" bulk edit type a little more consistent with other types by passing data down instead of having it reach up the stack. This simplifies the implementation of a custom field "select" in a future change.
Also, provide an option list to the "select" edit field for object subtypes. This is only accessible via Conduit so it currently never actually renders anything in the UI, but with the bulk edit stuff we get some initialization order issues if we don't set anything. This will also make any future changes which expose subtypes more broadly more straightforward.
Test Plan:
- Bulk edited "select" fields, like "Status" and "Priority".
- No more fatal when trying to `getOptions()` internally on the subtype field.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18878
Summary:
Ref T13025. This allows custom tokenizer fields, like a "Owning Group" field, to be edited with the bulk editor.
See PHI173 for some context.
Test Plan: Edited a custom "Owner" field (a project tokenizer) with the bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18877
Summary:
Ref T13025. Custom field transactions work somewhat unusually: the values sometimes need to be encoded. We currently do not apply this encoding correctly via Conduit.
For example, setting some custom PHID field to `["PHID-X-Y"]` fails with a bunch of JSON errors.
Add an extra hook callback so that EditTypes can apply processing to transaction values, then apply the correct CustomField processing.
This only affects Conduit. In a future diff, this also allows bulk edit of custom fields to work correctly.
Test Plan: Added a custom field to Maniphest with a list of projects. Used Conduit to bulk edit it (which now works, but did not before). Used the web UI to bulk edit it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18876
Summary:
Ref T13025. Currently, the bulk editor takes an HTTP request and emits a list of "raw" transactions (simple dictionaries). This goes into the job queue, and the background job builds a real transaction.
However, the logic to turn an HTTP request into a raw transaction is ending up with some duplication, since we generally already have logic to turn an HTTP request into a full object.
Instead: build real objects first, then serialize them to dictionaries. Send those to the job queue, rebuild them into objects again, and we end up in the same spot with a little less code duplication.
Finally, delete the mostly-copied code.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to add comments, projects, and rename tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18875
Summary:
Ref T13025. See PHI173. This supports the "Assign to" field in the new editor.
This is very slightly funky: to unassign tasks, you need to leave the field blank. I have half a diff to fix this, but the way the `none()` token works in the default datasource is odd so it needs a separate datasource. I'm punting on this for now since it works, at least, and isn't //completely// unreasonable.
This also simplifies some EditEngine stuff a little. Notably:
- I reorganized EditType construction slightly so subclasses can copy/paste a little bit less.
- EditType had `field` and `editField` properties which had the same values. I canonicalized on `editField` and made this value set a little more automatically.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to reassign some tasks. By leaving the field blank, unassigned tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18874
Summary: Depends on D18867. Ref T13025. Fixes T8740. Rebuilds the tag/subscriber actions (add, remove, set) into the bulk editor.
Test Plan: Added, removed and set these values via bulk edit.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T8740
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18868
Summary:
Depends on D18866. Ref T13025. Fixes T12415. This makes the old "Add Comment" action work, and adds support for a new "Set description to" action (possibly, I could imagine "append description" being useful some day, maybe).
The implementation is just a `<textarea />`, not a whole fancy remarkup box with `[Bold] [Italic] ...` buttons, preview, typeaheads, etc. It would be nice to enrich this eventually but doing the rendering in pure JS is currently very involved.
This requires a little bit of gymnastics to get the transaction populated properly, and adds some extra validation since we need some code there anyway.
Test Plan:
- Changed the description of a task via bulk editor.
- Added a comment to a task via bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T12415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18867
Summary: Depends on D18864. Ref T13025. Adds bulk edit support back for "status" and "priority" using `<select />` controls.
Test Plan:
Used bulk editor to change status and priority for tasks.
{F5374436}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18866
Summary: Depends on D18863. Ref PHI173. Ref T13025. After D18863, this job type is no longer used: the workflow uses a genric worker instead which can apply transactions to any object.
Test Plan: Grepped for callsites, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18864
Summary:
Depends on D18862. See PHI173. Ref T13025. Fixes T10005. This redefines bulk edits in terms of EditEngine fields, rather than hard-coding the whole thing.
Only text fields -- and, specifically, only the "Title" field -- are supported after this change. Followup changes will add more bulk edit parameter types and broader field support.
However, the title field now works without any Maniphest-specific code, outside of the small amount of binding code in the `ManiphestBulkEditor` subclass.
Test Plan: Used the bulk edit workflow to change the titles of tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18863
Summary:
Depends on D18806. Ref T13025. See PHI173. Currently, Maniphest bulk edits are processed by a Maniphest-specific worker. I want to replace this with a generic worker which can apply transactional edits to any object.
This implements a generic worker, although it has no callers yet. Future changes give it callers, and later remove the Maniphest-specific worker.
Test Plan: See next changes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18862
Summary:
Depends on D18805. Ref T13025. Fixes T10268.
Instead of using a list of IDs for the bulk editor, power it with SearchEngine queries. This gives us the full power of SearchEngine and lets us use a query key instead of a list of 20,000 IDs to avoid issues with URL lengths.
Also, split it into a base `BulkEngine` and per-application subclasses. This moves us toward T10005 and universal support for bulk operations.
Also:
- Renames most of "batch" to "bulk": we're curently inconsitent about this, I like "bulk" better since I think it's more clear if you don't regularly interact with `.bat` files, and newer stuff mostly uses "bulk".
- When objects in the result set can't be edited because you don't have permission, show the status more clearly.
This probably breaks some stuff a bit since I refactored so heavily, but it seems mostly OK from poking around. I'll clean up anything I missed in followups to deal with remaining items on T13025.
Test Plan:
{F5302300}
- Bulk edited from Maniphest.
- Bulk edited from a workboard (no more giant `?ids=....` in the URL).
- Hit most of the error conditions, I think?
- Clicked the "Cancel" button.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10268
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18806
Summary:
Ref T13025. See PHI50. Fixes T11286. Ref T10005. Begin modernizing the bulk editor.
For T10005 ("move the bulk editor to modern infrastructure"), rewrite the rendering of the editable set so that it is application-agnostic and can work with any kind of object.
For T11286 ("let users de-select items in the working set"), make the working set editable.
Test Plan:
{F5302158}
- Deselected some objects, applied an edit, saw the edit apply to only selected objects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T11286, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18805
Summary: See PHI273. Third time's the charm? This page has a "Project" filter which lets you view data for only one project, but the synthetic data currently ignores it.
Test Plan: Filtered burnup chart by various projects, saw sensible-looking data.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18860
Summary: See D18857. Ref T13036. See PHI275. Explain what's going on here a little better since it isn't entirely obvious and debugging these stream parsers is a gigantic pain.
Test Plan: Read text.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18859
Summary:
Ref T13020. See PHI273. See D18853. On `secure`, the chart looks less promising than it did locally, and is full of discontinuities:
{F5356544}
I think this is a sorting issue. But if I can't fake my way through this soon I'll maybe get the Fact engine running and use it to provide the data here, as a sort of half-step toward T1562?
Test Plan: Chart looks the same locally, will push and see if `secure` improves?
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13020
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18854
Summary:
Depends on D18856. Ref T13036. See PHI275. When we receive a length frame but the buffer doesn't have any data yet, we currently emit a pointless 0-length data frame on the channel.
For normal chatter this is harmless/valid, but it causes problems when a channel has transitioned into bundle2 mode (probably it indicates "end of stream")?
In any case, it's never helpful, so if we're about to read a data block and don't have any data, just bail out until we see some more data.
Note that we can't end up here //expecting// a 0-length data block: both the `data-length` and `data-bytes` states already handle that properly.
Test Plan: Pushed 4MB changes to a Mercurial repository with Mercurial 4.1.1, was no longer able to hit channel errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18857
Summary:
Depends on D18855. Ref T13036. This comment no longer seems to be accurate: anything we send over `stderr` is faithfully shown to the user with recent clients.
From [[ https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/file/default/mercurial/help/internals/wireprotocol.txt | this document ]], the missing sauce may have been:
```
A generic error response type is also supported. It consists of a an error
message written to ``stderr`` followed by ``\n-\n``. In addition, ``\n`` is
written to ``stdout``.
```
That is, writing "\n" to stdout in addition to writing the error to stderr. However, this no longer appears to be necessary.
I think the modern client behavior is generally sensible (and consistent with the behavior of Git and Subversion) so this //probably// isn't a bug or me making a mistake.
Test Plan: With a modern client, threw some arbitrary exception during execution. Observed a helpful message on the client with no additional steps.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18856
Summary:
Ref T13036. This code attempts to filter the "capabilities" message to remove "bundle2", but I think this has never worked.
Specifically, the //write// pathway is hooked, and "write" here means "client is writing a message to the server". However, the "capabilities" frame is part of the response, not part of the request. Thus, this code never fires, at least on recent versions of Mercurial.
Since I plan to support bundle2 and don't want to decode response frames, just get rid of this, assuming we'll achieve those goals.
I think this was just overlooked in D14241, which probably focused on the HTTP version. This code does (at least, potentially) do something for HTTP.
I'm leaving the actual "strip stuff" code in place for now since I think it's still used on the HTTP pathway.
Test Plan:
- Added debug logging, saw this code never hit even though `hg push --debug` shows the client believing bundle2 is supported.
- Logged both halves of the wire protocol and saw this come from the server, not the client.
- Ran the failing `hg push` of a 4MB file under hg 4.4.1, got the same error as before.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: cspeckmim
Maniphest Tasks: T13036
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18855
Summary:
Depends on D18848. Ref PHI243. This puts a bit of logic up front to figure out the blueprint type before we actually start editing it.
This implementation is a little messy but it keeps the API clean. Eventually, the implementation could probably go in the TransactionTypes so more code is shared, but I'd like to wait for a couple more of these first.
This capability probably isn't too useful, but just pays down a bit of technical debt from the caveat introduced in D18822.
Test Plan:
- Created a new blueprint with the API.
- Tried to create a blueprint without a "type" (got a helpful error).
- Created and edited blueprints via the web UI.
- Tried to change the "type" of an existing blueprint (got a helpful error).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18849
Summary:
Depends on D18845. See PHI243 for context and more details.
Briefly, some objects need a "type" transaction (or something similar) very early on, and we can't generate their fields until we know the object type. Drydock blueprints are an example: a blueprint's fields depend on the blueprint's type.
In web interfaces, the workflow just forces the user to select a type first. For Conduit workflows, I think the cleanest approach is to proactively extract and apply type information before processing the request. This will make the implementation a little messier, but the API cleaner.
An alternative is to add more fields to the API, like a "type" field. This makes the implementation cleaner, but the API messier. I think we're better off favoring a cleaner API here.
This change just makes it possible for `DrydockBlueprintEditEngine` to look at the incoming transactions and extract a "type"; it doesn't actually change any behavior.
Test Plan: Performed edits via API, but this change doesn't alter any behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18847
Summary: Ref PHI243. This is a followup to D18822, which added an edit-only `drydock.blueprint.edit`. By modularizing transactions (here) and then adding a "type" transaction (next change) I intend to remove the "edit-only" limitation and make this API method fully functional.
Test Plan: Created and edited blueprints via the web UI. Edited blueprints via the API. Disabled/enabled blueprints (currently web UI only).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18845
Summary:
Fixes T13031. "Enormous" changes are basically changes which are too large to hold in memory, although the actual definition we use today is "more than 1GB of change text or `git diff` runs for more than 15 minutes".
If an install configures a Herald content rule like "when content matches /XYZ/, do something" and then a user pushes a 30 GB source file, we can't put it into memory to `preg_match()` it. Currently, the way to handle this case is to write a separate Herald rule that rejects enormous changes. However, this isn't obvious and means the default behavior is unsafe.
Make the default behavior safe by rejecting these changes with a message, similar to how we reject "dangerous" changes (which permanently delete or overwrite history) by default.
Also, change a couple of UI strings from "Enormous" to "Very Large" to reduce ambiguity. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/herald-enormous-check/822>.
Test Plan: Changed the definition of "enormous" from 1GB to 1 byte. Pushed a change; got rejected. Allowed enormous changes, pushed, got rejected by a Herald rule. Disabled the Herald rule, pushed, got a clean push. Prevented enormous changes again. Grepped for "enormous" elsewhere in the UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: joshuaspence
Maniphest Tasks: T13031
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18850
Summary:
See PHI273. Ref T13020. After D18777, tasks created directly into the default status (which is common) via the web UI no longer write a "status" transaction.
This is consistent with other applications, and consistent with the API/email behavior for tasks since early 2016. It also improves the consistency of //reading// tasks via the API.
However, it impacted the "Burnup Report" which relies on directly reading these rows to detect task creation. Until this is fixed properly (T1562), synthetically generate the "missing" transactions which this page expects by looking at task creation dates instead.
Specifically, we:
- Generate a fake `status: null -> "open"` transaction for every task by looking at the Task table.
- Go through the transaction list and remove all the legacy `status: null -> "any open status"` transactions. These will only exist for older tasks.
- Merge all our new fake transactions into the list of transactions.
- Continue on as though nothing happened, letting the rendering code continue to operate on legacy-looking data.
I think this will slightly miscount tasks which were created directly into a closed status, but this is very rare, and does not significantly impact the accuracy of this report relative to other known issues (notably, merging closed tasks).
This will also get the wrong result if the default status has changed from an "open" status to a "closed" status at any point, but this is exceptionally bizarre/rare.
Ultimately, T1562 will let us delete all this stuff and disavow its existence.
Test Plan:
- Created some tasks, loaded burnup before/after this patch.
- My local chart looks more accurate afterwards, but the data is super weird (I used `bin/lipsum` to create a huge number of tasks a couple months ago). I'll vet this on `secure`, which has more reasonable data.
Here's my local chart:
{F5356499}
That's what it //should// look like, it's just hard to be confident that nothing else is hiding there.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13020
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18853
Summary:
Depends on D18851. Ref T13035. After D18819, revision creation transactions may be split into two groups (if prototypes are enabled).
This split means we have two workers. The first worker doesn't publish feed stories or mail; the second one does.
Currently, both workers call `shouldPublishFeedStory()` before they queue, and then again after the daemons pull them out of the queue. However, the answer to this question can change.
Specifically, this happens:
- `arc` creates a revision.
- The first transaction group applies, creating the revision as a draft, and returns `false` from `shouldPublishFeedStory()`, and does not generate related PHIDs. It queues a daemon to send mail, expecting it not to publish a feed story.
- The second transaction group applies, promoting the revision to "needs review". Since the revision has promoted, `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true. This editor generates related PHIDs and queues a daemon task, expecting it to send mail / publish feed.
- A few milliseconds pass.
- The first job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. It does not have any feed metadata because the object wasn't publishable when the job was queued -- but `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true, so it tries to publish a story without any metadata available. Slightly bad stuff happens (see below).
- The second job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. This one has metadata and works fine.
The "slightly bad stuff" is that we publish an empty feed story with no references to any objects, then try to push it to hooks and other listeners. Since it doesn't have any references, it fails to load during the "push to external listeners" phase.
This is harmless but clutters the log and doesn't help anything.
Instead, cache the state of "are we publishing a feed story for this object?" when we queue the worker so it can't race.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald triggers for Harbormaster build plans.
- Ran `bin/phd debug task` in one window.
- Created a revision in a separate window.
- Before patch: saw "unable to load feed story" errors in the daemon log.
- After patch: no more "unable to load feed story" errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18852
Summary: Ref T13035. See that task for a description of the issue.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald rules that trigger Harbormaster builds.
- Created a new revision.
- Before patch: initial review request email was dropped.
- After patch: initial review request email is sent.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18851
Summary:
Depends on D18851. Ref T13035. After D18819, revision creation transactions may be split into two groups (if prototypes are enabled).
This split means we have two workers. The first worker doesn't publish feed stories or mail; the second one does.
Currently, both workers call `shouldPublishFeedStory()` before they queue, and then again after the daemons pull them out of the queue. However, the answer to this question can change.
Specifically, this happens:
- `arc` creates a revision.
- The first transaction group applies, creating the revision as a draft, and returns `false` from `shouldPublishFeedStory()`, and does not generate related PHIDs. It queues a daemon to send mail, expecting it not to publish a feed story.
- The second transaction group applies, promoting the revision to "needs review". Since the revision has promoted, `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true. This editor generates related PHIDs and queues a daemon task, expecting it to send mail / publish feed.
- A few milliseconds pass.
- The first job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. It does not have any feed metadata because the object wasn't publishable when the job was queued -- but `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true, so it tries to publish a story without any metadata available. Slightly bad stuff happens (see below).
- The second job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. This one has metadata and works fine.
The "slightly bad stuff" is that we publish an empty feed story with no references to any objects, then try to push it to hooks and other listeners. Since it doesn't have any references, it fails to load during the "push to external listeners" phase.
This is harmless but clutters the log and doesn't help anything.
Instead, cache the state of "are we publishing a feed story for this object?" when we queue the worker so it can't race.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald triggers for Harbormaster build plans.
- Ran `bin/phd debug task` in one window.
- Created a revision in a separate window.
- Before patch: saw "unable to load feed story" errors in the daemon log.
- After patch: no more "unable to load feed story" errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18852
Summary: Ref T13035. See that task for a description of the issue.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald rules that trigger Harbormaster builds.
- Created a new revision.
- Before patch: initial review request email was dropped.
- After patch: initial review request email is sent.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18851
Summary:
See PHI262. Fixes T12578. Although this is a bit niche and probably better accomplished through advisory/soft measures ("Add blocking reviewers") in most cases, it isn't difficult to implement and doesn't create any technical or product tension.
If installs write a rule that blocks commits, that will probably also naturally lead them to an "add reviewers" rule anyway.
Also, allow packages to be hit with the typeahead. They're valid reviewers but previously you couldn't write rules against them, for no actual reason.
Test Plan: Used test console to run this against commits, got sensible results for the field value.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12578
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18839
Summary:
See PHI262. Fixes T12578. Although this is a bit niche and probably better accomplished through advisory/soft measures ("Add blocking reviewers") in most cases, it isn't difficult to implement and doesn't create any technical or product tension.
If installs write a rule that blocks commits, that will probably also naturally lead them to an "add reviewers" rule anyway.
Also, allow packages to be hit with the typeahead. They're valid reviewers but previously you couldn't write rules against them, for no actual reason.
Test Plan: Used test console to run this against commits, got sensible results for the field value.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12578
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18839
Summary:
See PHI223. Ref T13024. There's a remaining registration/login order issue after the other changes in T13024: we lose track of the current URI when we go through the MFA flow, so we can lose "Set Password" at the end of the flow.
Specifically, the flow goes like this today:
- User clicks the welcome link in email.
- They get redirected to the "set password" settings panel.
- This gets pre-empted by Legalpad (although we'll potentially survive this with the URI intact).
- This also gets pre-empted by the "Set MFA" workflow. If the user completes this flow, they get redirected to a `/auth/multifactor/?id=123` sort of URI to highlight the factor they added. This causes us to lose the `/settings/panel/password/blah/blah?key=xyz` URI.
The ordering on this is also not ideal; it's preferable to start with a password, then do the other steps, so the user can return to the flow more easily if they are interrupted.
Resolve this by separating the "change your password" and "set/reset your password" flows onto two different pages. This copy/pastes a bit of code, but both flows end up simpler so it feels reasonable to me overall.
We don't require a full session for "set/reset password" (so you can do it if you don't have MFA/legalpad yet) and do it first.
This works better and is broadly simpler for users.
Test Plan:
- Required MFA + legalpad, invited a user via email, registered.
- Before: password set flow got lost when setting MFA.
- After: prompted to set password, then sign documents, then set up MFA.
- Reset password (with MFA confgiured, was required to MFA first).
- Tried to reset password without a valid reset key, wasn't successful.
- Changed password using existing flow.
- Hit various (all?) error cases (short password, common password, mismatch, missing password, etc).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18840
