Summary:
Depends on D19009. Ref T13053. For "Must Encrypt" mail, we must currently strip the "Thread-Topic" header because it sometimes contains sensitive information about the object.
I don't actually know if this header is useful or anyting uses it. My understanding is that it's an Outlook/Exchange thing, but we also implement "Thread-Index" which I think is what Outlook/Exchange actually look at. This header may have done something before we implemented "Thread-Index", or maybe never done anything. Or maybe older versions of Excel/Outlook did something with it and newer versions don't, or do less. So it's possible that an even better fix here would be to simply remove this, but I wasn't able to convince myself of that after Googling for 10 minutes and I don't think it's worth hours of installing Exchange/Outlook to figure out. Instead, I'm just trying to simplify our handling of this header for now, and maybe some day we'll learn more about Exchange/Outlook and can remove it.
In a number of cases we already use the object monogram or PHID as a "Thread-Topic" without users ever complaining, so I think that if this header is useful it probably isn't shown to users, or isn't shown very often (e.g., only in a specific "conversation" sub-view?). Just use the object PHID (which should be unique and stable) as a thread-topic, everywhere, automatically.
Then allow this header through for "Must Encrypt" mail.
Test Plan: Processed some local mail, saw object PHIDs for "Thread-Topic" headers.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19012
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary: Ref T12685, updates fund for edit engine.
Test Plan: Create a Fund, Edit a Fund, wipe out Merchants, check errors for name and missing merchants, back Fund.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12685
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17855
Summary: Fixes T12627. Updates FundInitiative and FundBacker with modular transactions.
Test Plan: Create an Initiative, back it with fake monies, close initiative, reopen, edit various fields.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12627
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17782
Summary: Adds basic commenting to Fund Initiatives.
Test Plan: Leave a comment, see comment.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15554
Summary: Ref T6403. This was actually simple stuff.
Test Plan: changed the edit policy of a paste. changed the edit and join policy of a phame blog.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6403
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12933
Summary: Ref T6403. This one was pretty easy since no one does anything custom with subscribers.
Test Plan: subscribed / unscribed to a random commit ("audit"). joined / left, watched / unwatched a project
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6403
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12930
Summary: Ref T6403. This does TYPE_EDGE since I just had to deal with T8252. Look like this fixes a few editors (maybe) that would have had fatals with mentions like slowvote and ponder.
Test Plan: made a phame post mentioning a task and it worked! joined / left a project, watched / unwatched a project and that worked! blind faith for other sites.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6403
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12929
Summary: Fixes T6343. Grepped for all callsites and added addLinkSection where needed.
Test Plan: Tested Differential, Maniphest, Conpherence, Ponder and Macro. Inspect HTML mail for anchor tags. Inspect text mails for non-disruption.
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: talshiri, Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6343
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10762
Summary: Ref T2787. When order statuses change, send merchants and users email about it.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail` to review mail.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2787
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10694
Summary: Ref T5835. Sprinkle `shouldAllowPublic()` around to let logged-out users gain access.
Test Plan: Viewed an initiative while logged out.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5835
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10683
Summary: Ref T5835. Dump these into global search so you can find them.
Test Plan: {F216290}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5835
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10682
Summary: Ref T5835. Make fund stories publish to feed and send email.
Test Plan: Made edits, etc., saw them in feed and outbound email.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5835
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10677
Summary: Ref T5835. Show backing amounts in transactions. Account for and show refunds.
Test Plan: {F215869}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5835
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10676
Summary:
Ref T2787. Builds on D10649 by rebining existing objects (carts, charges, etc) to merchantPHIDs and providerPHIDs instead of an implicit global merchant and weird global artifacts (providerType / providerKey).
Basically:
- When you create something that users can pay for, you specify a merchant to control where the payment goes.
- Accounts are install-wide, but payment methods are bound to merchants. This seems to do a reasonable job of balancing usability and technical concerns.
- Replace a bunch of weird links between objects with standard PHIDs.
- Improve "add payment method" flow.
Test Plan: Went through the Fund flow with Stripe and WePay, funding an initiative.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2787
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10652
Summary:
Ref T2787. When a user purchases a product in Phortune, transition the cart through a purchased state and invoke product callbacks so applications can respond to the workflow.
Also shore up some stuff like preventing negative amounts of funding.
Test Plan: Backed an initiative and saw it show up on the initiative after completing the purcahsing workflow.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2787
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10635
Summary:
Ref T5835. This is still completely made up (no payment integration), but you can "back" an initiative, type a number in the box, and generate a database row. You can then seach for backers and things you've backed and such.
Notable changes:
- Renamed "FundBacking" to "FundBacker". The former name was sort of because you can back things multiple times, but stuff like `$backings` was just too weird.
- I think that's it?
Test Plan:
- Backed an initiative.
- Viewed that I became a backer.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5835
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10486
Summary:
Ref T5835. This is all pretty boilerplate, and does not interact with Phortune at all yet.
You can create "Initiatives", which have a title and description, and support most of the expected infrastructure (policies, transactions, mentions, edges, appsearch, remakrup, etc).
Only notable decisions:
- Initiatives have an explicit owner. I think it's good to have a single clearly-responsible user behind an initiative.
- I think that's it?
Test Plan:
- Created an initiative.
- Edited an initiative.
- Changed application policy defaults.
- Searched for initiatives.
- Subscribed to an initiative.
- Opened/closed an initiative.
- Used `I123` and `{I123}` in remarkup.
- Destroyed an initiative.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5835
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10481
