Summary: Ref T13411. When users click a link to explain a capability (like the policy header on many objects, or the link next to specific capabilities in "Applications", "Diffusion", etc), inline the full ruleset for the custom policy into the dialog if the object has a custom policy.
Test Plan: {F6856365}
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20805
Summary:
Ref T13411. Since circa D19829, transactions have rendered policy changes in a modern way, notably making "Custom Policy" clickable to show the policy rules.
Edit transactions in Applications still use a separate, older approach to render policies. This produces policy renderings which don't use modern quoting rules and don't link in a modern way.
Make Applications use the same rendering code that other transactions (like normal edit/view edits) use.
Test Plan: Edited policies in Applications, saw more useful transactions in the log. Clicked "Custom Policy" in the transaction log and got a useful explanation of the policy.
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20801
Summary: See rPaacc62463d61. D20551 added some `CAN_INTERACT` checks, but `CAN_INTERACT` needs to be checked with `canInteract()` to fall back to `CAN_VIEW` properly. D20558 cleaned up most of this but missed one callsite; fix that up too.
Test Plan: Removed a comment on a commit.
Reviewers: amckinley, 20after4
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20648
Summary: Ref T13319. Ref PHI1302. Migrate `PhabricatorEditEngineConfigurationTransaction` to modular transactions and add some additional transaction rendering to make these edits less opaque.
Test Plan: Hit all the form edit controllers, viewed resulting transaction timeline.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T13319
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20595
Summary:
Ref T13289. See D20551. In D20551, I implemented some "CAN_INTERACT" checks against certain edits, but these checks end up testing "CAN_INTERACT" against objects like Conpherence threads which do not support a distinct "CAN_INTERACT" permission. I misrembered how the "CAN_INTERACT" fallback to "CAN_VIEW" actually works: it's not fully automatic, and needs some explicit "interact, or view if interact is not available" checks.
Use the "interact" wrappers to test these policies so they fall back to "CAN_VIEW" if an object does not support "CAN_INTERACT". Generally, objects which have a "locked" state have a separate "CAN_INTERACT" permission; objects which don't have a "locked" state do not.
Test Plan: Created and edited comments in Conpherence (or most applications other than Maniphest).
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13289
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20558
Summary:
Ref T13289. This tightens up a couple of corner cases around locked threads.
Locking is primarily motivated by two use cases: stopping nonproductive conversations on open source installs (similar to GitHub's feature); and freezing object state for audit/record-keeping purposes.
Currently, you can edit or remove comments on a locked thread, but neither use case is well-served by allowing this. Require "CAN_INTERACT" to edit or remove a comment.
Administrators can still remove comments from a locked thread to serve "lock a flamewar, then clean it up", since "Remove Comment" on a comment you don't own is fairly unambiguously an administrative action.
Test Plan:
- On a locked task, tried to edit and remove my comments as a non-administrator. Saw appropriate disabled UI state and error dialogs (actions were disallowed).
- On a locked task, tried to remove another user's comments as an administrator. This works.
- On a normal task, edited comments normally.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13289
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20551
Summary:
Ref PHI1173. Currently, you can edit an MFA'd comment without redoing MFA. This is inconsistent with the intent of the MFA badge, since it means an un-MFA'd comment may have an "MFA" badge on it.
Instead, implement these rules:
- If a comment was signed with MFA, you MUST MFA to edit it.
- When removing a comment, add an extra MFA prompt if the user has MFA. This one isn't strictly required, this action is just very hard to undo and seems reasonable to MFA.
Test Plan:
- Made normal comments and MFA comments.
- Edited normal comments and MFA comments (got prompted).
- Removed normal comments and MFA comments (prompted in both cases).
- Tried to edit an MFA comment without MFA on my account, got a hard "MFA absolutely required" failure.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20340
Summary:
Depends on D19914. Ref T11351. Some of the Phoilo rabbit holes go very deep.
`PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface` currently requires you to implement `willRenderTimeline()`. Almost every object just implements this as `return $timeline`; only Pholio, Diffusion, and Differential specialize it. In all cases, they are specializing it mostly to render inline comments.
The actual implementations are a bit of a weird mess and the way the data is threaded through the call stack is weird and not very modern.
Try to clean this up:
- Stop requiring `willRenderTimeline()` to be implemented.
- Stop requiring `getApplicationTransactionViewObject()` to be implemented (only the three above, plus Legalpad, implement this, and Legalpad's implementation is a no-op). These two methods are inherently pretty coupled for almost any reasonable thing you might want to do with the timeline.
- Simplify the handling of "renderdata" and call it "View Data". This is additional information about the current view of the transaction timeline that is required to render it correctly. This is only used in Differential, to decide if we can link an inline comment to an anchor on the same page or should link it to another page. We could perhaps do this on the client instead, but having this data doesn't seem inherently bad to me.
- If objects want to customize timeline rendering, they now implement `PhabricatorTimelineInterface` and provide a `TimelineEngine` which gets a nice formal stack.
This leaves a lot of empty `willRenderTimeline()` implementations hanging around. I'll remove these in the next change, it's just going to be deleting a couple dozen copies of an identical empty method implementation.
Test Plan:
- Viewed audits, revisions, and mocks with inline comments.
- Used "Show Older" to page a revision back in history (this is relevant for "View Data").
- Grepped for symbols: willRenderTimeline, getApplicationTransactionViewObject, Legalpad classes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19918
Summary: Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. To make "Create Subtask..." fancier, we need slightly more logic around subtype maps. Upgrade the plain old array into a proper object so it can have relevant methods, notably "get a list of valid child subtypes for some parent subtype".
Test Plan: Created and edited tasks, changed task subtypes. Grepped for affected symbols (`newEditEngineSubtypeMap`, `newSubtypeMap`).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19852
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI683. Currently, you can "Change subtype..." via Conduit and the bulk editor, but not via the comment action stack or edit forms.
In PHI683 an install is doing this often enough that they'd like it to become a first-class action. I've generally been cautious about pushing this action to become a first-class action (there are some inevitable rough edges and I don't want to add too much complexity if there isn't a use case for it) but since we have evidence that users would find it useful and nothing has exploded yet, I'm comfortable taking another step forward.
Currently, `EditEngine` has this sort of weird `setIsConduitOnly()` method. This actually means more like "this doesn't show up on forms". Make it better align with that. In particular, a "conduit only" field can already show up in the bulk editor, which is goofy. Change this to `setIsFormField()` and convert/simplify existing callsites.
Test Plan:
There are a lot of ways to reach EditEngine so this probably isn't entirely exhaustive, but I think I got pretty much anything which is likely to break:
- Searched for `setIsConduitOnly()` and `getIsConduitOnly()`, converted all callsites to `setIsFormField()`.
- Searched for `setIsLockable()`, `setIsReorderable()` and `setIsDefaultable()` and aligned these calls to intent where applicable.
- Created an Almanac binding.
- Edited an Almanac binding.
- Created an Almanac service.
- Edited an Almanac service.
- Edited a binding property.
- Deleted a binding property.
- Created and edited a badge.
- Awarded and revoked a badge.
- Created and edited an event.
- Made an event recurring.
- Created and edited a Conpherence thread.
- Edited and updated the diff for a revision.
- Created and edited a repository.
- Created and disabled repository URIs.
- Created and edited a blueprint.
- Created and edited tasks.
- Created a paste, edited/archived a paste.
- Created/edited/archived a package.
- Created/edited a project.
- Made comments.
- Moved tasks on workboards via comment action stack.
- Changed task subtype via comment action stack.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19842
Summary: Fixes T12434. I accidentally copy/pasted this too much in D17442.
Test Plan: Viewed a form edit page, no longer saw two copies of this action.
Reviewers: chad, cspeckmim
Reviewed By: chad, cspeckmim
Maniphest Tasks: T12434
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17530
Summary:
Ref T12314. This adds a "Change Form Subtype" workflow to the EditEngine form configuration screen, for forms that edit/create objects which support subtyping (for now, only tasks).
For example, this allows you to switch a form from being a "task" form to a "plant" or "animal" form.
Doing this doesn't yet do anything useful or interesting. I'm also not showing it in the UI yet since I'm not sure what we should make that look like (presumably, we should just echo whatever UI we end up with on tasks).
Test Plan:
- Changed the subtype of a task form.
- Verified that the "Change Subtype" action doesn't appear on other forms (for example, those for Pastes).
{F3491374}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17442
Summary: Fixes T12068. These are inbound messages, not outbound.
Test Plan: Read carefully.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12068
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17144
Summary:
Ref T7643. When you do something like this:
- Edit a task description.
- Click "Show Details" on the resulting transaction.
- Get a prose diff dialog showing the change.
...now add some "Old" and "New" tabs. These are useful for:
- reverting to the old text by copy/pasting;
- reading just the new/old text if the diff is noisy;
- sometimes just nice to have?
(This looks a little rough but I didn't want to put a negative margin on tab groups inside dialogs? Not sure what the best fix here is.)
Test Plan: {F1909390}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7643
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16817
Summary:
Ref T7643.
- When a transaction edits a text block, add a link to the changes (for HTML mail).
- Also, inline the changes in the mail (for HTML mail).
- Do nothing for text mail since I don't think we really have room? And I don't know how we can make the diff look any good.
Test Plan:
Edited a task description, generated mail, examined mail.
- It contained a link leading to a prose diff.
- It had a more-or-less reasonable inline text diff.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7643
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16063
Summary:
Ref T3353. This hooks the prose engine up to the UI and throws away the hard-wrapping hacks.
These are likely still very rough in many cases, but are hopefully a big step forward from the old version in the vast majority of cases.
Test Plan: {F1677809}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T3353
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16056
Summary: Cleans up EditEngine, adds new layout to EditEngine and descendents
Test Plan: Test creating a new form, reordering, marking and unmarking defaults. View new forms.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15531
Summary:
Ref T10537. For Nuance, I want to introduce new sources (like "GitHub" or "GitHub via Nuance" or something) but this needs to modularize eventually.
Split ContentSource apart so applications can add new content sources.
Test Plan:
This change has huge surface area, so I'll hold it until post-release. I think it's fairly safe (and if it does break anything, the breaks should be fatals, not anything subtle or difficult to fix), there's just no reason not to hold it for a few hours.
- Viewed new module page.
- Grepped for all removed functions/constants.
- Viewed some transactions.
- Hovered over timestamps to get content source details.
- Added a comment via Conduit.
- Added a comment via web.
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade --namespace XXXXX --no-quickstart -f` to re-run all historic migrations.
- Generated some objects with `bin/lipsum`.
- Ran a bulk job on some tasks.
- Ran unit tests.
{F1190182}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10537
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15521
Summary: Moves all the one off object calls to PHUIRemarkupView, adds a "Document" call as well (future plans).
Test Plan: Visited most pages I could get access to, but may want extra careful eyes on this diff.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15281
Summary: Mostly for consistency, we're not using other forms of icons and this makes all classes that use an icon call it in the same way.
Test Plan: tested uiexamples, lots of other random pages.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15125
Summary:
Ref T10054. This does a big chunk of the legwork to let users reconfigure profile menus (currently, just project menus).
This includes:
- Editing builtin items (e.g., you can rename the default items).
- Creating new items (for now, only links are available).
This does not yet include:
- Hiding items.
- Reordering items.
- Lots of fancy types of items (dashboards, etc).
- Any UI changes.
- Documentation (does feature: TODO link for documentation).
Test Plan:
{F1060695}
{F1060696}
{F1060697}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15010
Summary: Ref T10004. This primarily supports moving Phame to EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F1045166}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14887
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:
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:
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 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 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 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: Fixes T9869. This specific transaction endpoint was missing `shouldAllowPublic()`. Also modernize things a little.
Test Plan: Viewed a policy change by clicking the policy name from the transaction record on a public object while logged out.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9869
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14606
Summary:
Ref T9132.
Let configurations be enabled/disabled. This doesn't do much right now.
Let configurations be marked as default entries in the application "Create" menu. This makes them show up in the application in a dropdown, so you can replace the default form and/or provide several forms.
In Maniphest, we'll do this to provide a menu something like this:
- New Bug Report
- New Feature Request
- ADVANCED TASK CREATION!!11~ (only available for Community members)
Test Plan: {F1005679}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14584
Summary:
Ref T9132. This adds an automatic "Comments" field, like the Subscribers/Projects/Policy fields.
The primary goals here are:
- Allow users to make comments via Conduit.
- In the future, get stackable action support.
As a side effect, this also allows you to put comments on create forms. This is a little silly but seems fine, and may be relevant on edit forms (which I'm not 100% sure how I want to handle yet). I've just hidden them by default for now.
Test Plan:
{F976036}
{F976037}
{F976038}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14515
Summary:
Ref T9132. Allows fields to be locked (shown, but not modifiable) and hidden (not shown).
In both cases, default values are still respected.
This lets you do things like create a form that generates objects with specific projects, policies, etc.
Test Plan:
- Set defaults.
- Locked and hid a bunch of fields.
- Created new objects using the resulting form.
{F975801}
{F975802}
{F975803}
{F975804}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14509
Summary: Ref T9132. Allow form configurations to include defaults (like default projects, spaces, policies, etc).
Test Plan:
Defaulted "Language" to "Rainbow", plus other adjustments:
{F975746}
{F975747}
{F975748}
{F975749}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14508
Summary:
Ref T9132. This just makes edited forms do //something//, albeit not anything very useful yet.
You can now edit a form and:
- Retitle it;
- add a preamble (instructions on top of the form); and
- reorder the form's fields.
Test Plan:
{F974632}
{F974633}
{F974634}
{F974635}
{F974636}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14503
Summary:
Ref T9132. This diff doesn't do anything interesting, it just lays the groundwork for more interesting future diffs.
Broadly, the idea here is to let you create multiple views of each edit form. For example, we might create several different "Create Task" forms, like:
- "New Bug Report"
- "New Feature Request"
These would be views of the "Create Task" form, but with various adjustments:
- A form might have additional instructions ("how to file a good bug report").
- A form might have prefilled values for some fields (like particular projects, subscribers, or policies).
- A form might have some fields locked (so they can not be edited) or hidden.
- A form might have a different field order.
- A form might have a limited visibility policy, so only some users can access it.
This diff adds a new storage object (`EditEngineConfiguration`) to keep track of all those customizations and represent "a form which has been configured to look and work a certain way".
This doesn't let these configurations do anything useful/interesting, and you can't access them directly yet, it's just all the boring plumbing to enable more interesting behavior in the future.
Test Plan:
ApplicationEditor forms now let you manage available forms and edit the current form:
{F959025}
There's a new (bare bones) list of all available engines:
{F959030}
And if you jump into an engine, you can see all the forms for it:
{F959038}
The actual form configurations have standard detail/edit pages. The edit pages are themselves driven by ApplicationEditor, of course, so you can edit the form for editing forms.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14453
Summary: Ref T9272. This doesn't fix anything, just a little cleanup while I was looking at it.
Test Plan: Clicked "Show Details" on a couple description changes, got the same effect for less code.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14168
Summary: Use `PhutilClassMaQuery` instead of `PhutilSymbolLoader`, mostly for consistency. Depends on D13588.
Test Plan: Poked around a bunch of pages.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13589
Summary: Fixes T8703. The URI handling here was a little unusual.
Test Plan:
- Edited and deleted comments in several applications, including Macro.
- As an admin, deleted others' comments.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13469
Summary: This call got renamed but I missed the callsite.
Test Plan: No more fatal when viewing a custom policy from a transaction history page.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad, Mnkras
Reviewed By: chad, Mnkras
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12337
Summary: These arrays looks a little odd, most likely due to the autofix applied by `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_ARRAY_SEPARATOR`. See D12296 in which I attempt to improve the autocorrection from this linter rule.
Test Plan: N/A
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12281
Summary:
Ref T2009. Ref T1460. The way Diffusion and Differential load inlines is horrible garbage right now:
- Differential does an ad-hoc query to get the PHIDs, then does a real load to policy check.
- Diffusion completely fakes things. In practice this is not a policy violation, but it's dangerous.
Make TransactionCommentQuery extensible so we can subclass it and get the query building correctly in the right Query layer.
Specifically, the Diffusion and Differential subclasses of this Query will add appropriate `withX()` methods to let us express the query in SQL.
Test Plan: Loaded, previewed, edited, and submitted inlines in Differential and Diffusion
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2009, T1460
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12026
Summary: Fixes T6895, When viewing comment edit history, user should not see a dropdown for each comment edit transaction.
Test Plan: Edit task comment, view comment edit history, comment transactions should not provide a dropdown with action items.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6895
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11355
Summary: Fixes T6594, Logged out users should be able to "View Raw" comments in public objects.
Test Plan: Log out, open maniphest task with comments, open dropdown associated with comment, click "View Raw", should be able to see raw comment.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6594
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11295
Summary: Ref T4712. This adds pagination. Future diffs will need to deploy `buildTransactionTimeline` everywhere and massage this stuff as necessary if we hit any special cases.
Test Plan: Set page size to "5" to make it need to paginate often. Verified proper transactions loaded in and the javascript actions worked.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4712
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10887
