Summary: Ref T7094. I guess theoretically someone could be making a commit and have just lost access to the revision and thus this could link this commit to that revision, but this all seems far fetched an weird? We also don't necessarily have the commit author's true identity since commit parsing can be a little funky to begin with. Anyhoo, functionally, this makes things no worse, but I am removing the TODO that would make us look at this in a fun way.
Test Plan: `bin/repository reparse --owners rXvalidhash` and it worked
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11654
Summary: Ref T7094. This makes the underlying class take a $user parameter, and then the worker just hands it an omnipotent user. Said underyling class is the benefactor of a small re-factor, dropping one query per-use, though the single query that now remains is policy-based so maybe its a wash or even worse. Still, gotta love one less query.
Test Plan:
a little tricky to test so some extra thought instead
basic acceptance test with `bin/repository reparse --change rValidHashHere` -- it worked!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11653
Summary: Moving towards a consisent 'if header, show in object box' style around Phabricator.
Test Plan:
Grep for uses of RevisionList and make sure double boxes arent set, browse Differential, various searches, a revision, and a commit.
{F282113}
{F282114}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11651
Summary:
Fixes T2380. Fixes T2382. Users should really configure this, but when we had a warning before a lot of users had trouble with it.
- Tout performance benefits.
- Document easy setup via CDN.
- We have an "Ignore" button now for users who really don't care.
Test Plan:
- Set up `admin.phacility.com` through AWS CloudFront (need a few changes to handle instances to put it on the cluster in general).
- Set up `secure.phabricator.com` through CloudFlare (almost; waiting for DNS).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: chad, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2382, T2380
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11649
Summary: Ref T7094. We basically need to make sure folks can see repositories before making owners packages about code within. This cleans up things a little bit by moving a bunch of logic out of the storage class and into an editor class.
Test Plan: made a package and it worked! deleted a package and it worked! discovered buggy behavior in more complicated edits and filed T7127; note this bug exists before and after this diff.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11652
Summary:
Ref T7123. Two general issues:
For proxied repositories, we currently throw a ConduitClientException, vs ConduitException for local repositories. This is inconsistent and we should fix it, but I also want to examine the use of try-the-call-and-throw at these sites since it may be something we can update. In particular, trying a call that we know will always fail is now more expensive (in proxied repositories) than it used to be.
Here, we try-and-throw for merges, but they're //never// supported in Subversion. Just don't bother trying.
Test Plan: Browsed a SVN repository with proxying set up, got a clean commit page.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7123
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11646
Summary:
Fixes T7122. The way this query works is a little surprising:
- If executed as `withRepositoryIDs(...)`, it assumes you are passing one //or more// repository IDs, so it will never resolve ambiguous identifiers (e.g., "123" instead of "rSVN123").
- If executed as `withRepository(...)`, it knows you are passing exactly one repository and will use that to imply context and resolve these identifiers correctly.
This isn't very obvious from the API, but I'm not sure how to make it more clear.
(Making `withRepositoryIDs()` do the `withRepository(...)` thing if only one ID was passed in would mean its behavior varied if you passed 1 vs 2 repository IDs, which seems worse / morse surprising.)
Test Plan: Various subversion UIs no longer fail to look up commits.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: mormegil, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7122
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11645
Summary: Minor, adds border, reduces greys, etc.
Test Plan:
View a number of config issues, see new colors.
{F282035}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11650
Summary: Just makes the UI cleaner on full width or dialog forms (and mobile)
Test Plan:
run into a bunch of errors, test mobile breakpoints.
{F281585}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11638
Summary:
This is a pain to test, but we do a lot of needless "X committed thing (authored by X)" right now.
I think that's because we compare two handle links here, and they're never the same, even if they're both links to the same object.
Instead, compare the author and committer more carefully.
Test Plan: Will do it live.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11635
Summary: Ref T7094. I am not sure when this text is legitimately exposed to users - they should be getting an error about not being able to see the object before they get an error about not being able to see a given transaction... That said, I think this text is logically correct at least.
Test Plan: read the text
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11632
Summary: should just be "withIDs" Ref T7094
Test Plan: submitting this very diff!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11633
Summary: This got updated recently but isn't quite correct.
Test Plan: Called `arcanist.projectinfo` using the name of a proejct with a repository association.
Reviewers: btrahan
NOTE: Cowboy committing this since it breaks `arc diff`.
Summary: We probably can't land this yet, since `arc tasks` still uses `maniphest.find` and `arc close` still uses `differential.getrevision`. We should clean those up and wait at least 30 days before committing this (maybe).
Test Plan: Saw setup issues for `maniphest.find` and `differential.getrevision` calls.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, joshuaspence, FacebookPOC, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6333
Summary: Ref T7094. We already had and were mostly using "needProfileImage" on the people query class. Only real trick in this diff is deleting a conduit end point that has been marked deprecated for the better part of 3 years.
Test Plan: clicked around the people action and profiles and calendars loaded nicely.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11630
Summary: Not too shabby - just convert some raw queries to the policy queries. Ref T7094.
Test Plan: NA 'cuz releeph
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11591
Summary: Ref T7094. This one is really straight-forward since $this->actor is always populated and the right thing to do here.
Test Plan: used the ole thinking noodle since testing email w/ attachments is really hard
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11589
Summary: Ref T7094. This loadRepository() method bypassed policy unnecessarily. kill it.
Test Plan: basically un-tested since arcanist projects are deprecated and the main callsites were in releeph. conduit end point still works though!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11586
Summary: Revamps Profile to be like Projects, a mini portal and side nav with icons.
Test Plan: Viewed my own profile, as well as others. Test seeing my commits, tasks, diffs, and upcoming events. Checked mobile navigation.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11547
Summary: Use `PhutilXHPASTBinary` methods instead of `xhpast_parse` functions. Depends on D11517.
Test Plan: N/A, this is a direct swap.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11612
Summary: This sets an icon for each config, makes it easier to scan.
Test Plan:
Reload Config page, see all new icons
{F281089}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11619
Summary: Clean up the error view styling.
Test Plan:
Tested as many as I could find, built additional tests in UIExamples
{F280452}
{F280453}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: hach-que, Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11605
Summary: Debugging crumbs in repository editing, and it seems there are stray divs that aren't used from extending AphrontTagView. I don't see any specific reason this needs to be from AphrontTagView, so changing it. Of course I'm not sure this is correct, so feel free to reject if I'm missing some obvious or non-obvious reasons.
Test Plan: Review editing a repositor, don't see extra div.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11608
Summary: Ref T6881. This won't do much of interest on third party installs yet, but it's stable and we don't need to hold it back any longer.
Test Plan: Ran `phd start`, saw the trigger daemon start up.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11603
Summary: Ref T6881. If we can't automatically bill an invoice, send the account owners a mail explaining why and asking them to pay it.
Test Plan: {F279596}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11602
Summary:
Ref T6881.
- Fix dead links.
- Let implementations provide more information.
- Provide more information to implementations.
Test Plan: Links work, invoices show billing periods, fewer "Subscription 6" crumbs, all is well in the world.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11601
Summary:
Ref T6881.
- Allow users to set a default payment method for a subscription, which we'll try to autobill (not all payment methods are autobillable, so we can't require this in the general case, and a charge might fail anyway).
- If a subscription has an autopay method, try to automatically bill it.
- Otherwise, we'll send them an email like "hey here's a bill, it couldn't autopay for some reasons, go pay it and fix those if you want".
- (That email doesn't exist yet but there's a comment about it.)
- Also some UI cleanup.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/phortune invoice` to autobill myself some fake test money.
{F279416}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11596
Summary: Self-explanatory. Also made a few methods `final`.
Test Plan: Eyeball it.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11598
Summary: Ref T7094. The class DiffusionRequest has other public methods which use getUser() in an unguarded way. Code inspection of the call sites for loadCommit() also leads me to believe the $user is properly set.
Test Plan: clicked around diffusion a bunch and everything seemed to work okay. (happy to test any particular esoteric endpoints that come to mind)
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11585
Summary:
Ref T6881. This is basically just some UX.
Right now, if we invoice you, you can //technically// pay it but since we don't tell you about it and don't show it in the UI you'd have to guess the ID by manipulating the URI. We should probably be at least a little more aggressive about billing.
In the common case when we generate a cart/order, we don't show it to the user or merchant in Phortune until the user takes a payment action (basically, Phortune doesn't recognize the cart until you actually check out with it). In the current use case in Fund (and other reasonable use cases) an un-acted-upon cart hasn't been ordered yet, and is just a place for the application to store state as it hands off the workflow to Phortune.
Even if we had a real "Shop for physical goods" app, I think the same rule would apply -- the application itself would probably track and show your current cart, but it wouldn't make sense to put it into your order history in Phortune until you actually buy it.
Since invoices from subscriptions are essentially identical to not-yet-ordered-carts, that mean they also did not show up in the UI (although I think this is also desirable).
This change carves out a place for them:
- Add an "invoices" section with unpaid invoices.
- The UI shows that you have unpaid invoices.
- Invoices have a slightly different rendering, inclduing an alluring "Pay Now" button.
Some considerations:
- One thing I'm vaguely thinking about is the possibilty that users may be able to invoice one another directly, eventually. For example, we might invoice a contracting client.
- Considering this, I thought about making these carts have a special status like `STATUS_DUE`, which replaces `STATUS_READY`, or a flag like `isInvoice`.
- However, this approach was pretty involved and made the //billing// logic more complicated, so I backed off. The ultimate approach here puts more of the complexity into the display logic, which feels better to me.
- We might need an `isInvoice` flag eventually, but `subscriptionPHID` is a reasonable stand-in for now.
- The OrderTable serving double duty for rendering subscriptions feels a little muddy, but I think splitting it into two highly-redundant classes would be worse.
Test Plan:
{F279348}
{F279349}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11593
Summary: The method is actually named `DivinerAtomRef::newFromDictionary`.
Test Plan: `./bin/diviner generate --publisher DivinerStaticPublisher` worked a bit better.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11590
Summary: Allow the `DivinerPublisher` subclass to be specified via `./bin/divner generate --publisher ...`. In particular, this allows use of the (mostly broken) `DivinerStaticPublisher`.
Test Plan: Ran `./bin/diviner generate --publisher DivinerStaticPublisher`
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11588
Summary: Minor tidying and modernizing a few things.
Test Plan: Ran `./bin/diviner atomize` and `./bin/diviner generate`.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11587
Summary: Ref T7094.
Test Plan: couldn't really test this - how does one get symbols going nowadays given they are acanist project based?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11584
Summary:
Ref T6881. This generates a product, purchase and invoice for users, and there's sort of some UI for them. Stuff it doesn't do yet:
- Try to autobill when we have a CC;
- actually tell the user they should pay it;
- ask the application for anything like "how much should we charge", or tell the application anything like "the user paid".
However, these work:
- You can //technically// pay the invoices.
- You can see the invoices you paid in the past.
Test Plan: Used `bin/phriction invoice` to double-bill myself over and over again. Paid one of the invoices.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11580
Summary: Ref T7094. Could just delete this end point too I guess? Needed to add "withCommitPHIDs" to the differentialrevisionquery to get this done.
Test Plan: used diffusion.getcommits from conduit console and got a sensible result for a query for two commits, one with a diff and one without.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11581
Summary:
Ref T6881. This adds the worker, and a script to make it easier to test. It doesn't actually invoice anything.
I'm intentionally allowing the script to double-bill since it makes testing way easier (by letting you bill the same period over and over again), and provides a tool for recovery if billing screws up.
(This diff isn't very interesting, just trying to avoid a 5K-line diff at the end.)
Test Plan: Used `bin/phortune invoice ...` to get the worker to print out some date ranges which it would theoretically invoice.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11577
Summary:
Ref T6881.
- Add a subscription detail page.
Minor cosmetics:
- Fix glyph, from "X" (old "X marks the spot" icon) to "diamond" (new gem icon).
- Name the initial account "Default Account" instead of "Personal Account", since this seems more general.
Test Plan:
{F278623}
And I got two full days to test that Jan 30/31 -> Feb 28 billing logic!
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11576
Summary:
Ref T6881. This still doesn't "work" in any reasonable sense of the word, but gets us a bit further.
I'll build out the Phortune UI a little bit next, then look at implementing the Worker to do actual billing.
Test Plan:
- Allocated an instance and saw a Subscription generate properly.
- Saw subscription show up in the Phortune UI, albeit in a very limited way.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11575
Summary:
Ref T7094. We should do a policy query on the files IMO because there exists a scenario where the file gets locked down directly. This requires being a bit more disciplined about setting user, which in turn requires deciding whether or not to show edit / reply links as a separate piece of logic, not conditional on user presence.
This is not the best code but I don't think it gets worse with this and is just some other nuance in any larger cleanup we take on someday.
Test Plan: looked at a revision and noted inline comments rendered correctly with reply / edit actions. looked at a diff standalone and noted no reply / edit actions as expected. looked at a "details" link on a transaction and it rendered correctly. looked at a diff in phriction of page edits and it looked good. grepped around and verified the remaining callsite in diffusion already has the setUser call.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11579
Summary: Fixes T1476. The body of the email should be just the output of some diff command.
Test Plan:
git diff master > text.txt; ./bin/mail receive-test --to <configured-diff-create-address> < text.txt; a diff was successfully created...! email generated had a working link to the diff.
./bin/mail receive-test --to <configured-diff-create-address> < README.md; a diff was not created as expected...! email generated had a sensical error message, telling me that the mail body should have been generated via a diff command
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: johnny-bit, Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1476
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11574
