Summary:
Ref T9789. `Transaction` and `Editor` classes are the last major pieces of infrastructure that haven't been fully modularized.
Some of the specific issues are:
- `Editor` classes rely on a bunch of `instanceof` stuff in the base class to pick up transaction types like "subscribe", "projects", etc. Instead, applications should be adding these, and third-party applications should be able to add them.
- Code is spread across `Transaction` and `Editor` classes somewhat oddly. For example, generating old/new values would probably make more sense at the `Transaction` level, but it currently exists at the `Editor` level.
- Both types of classes have a lot of functions based on `switch()` statements, which require a ton of boilerplate and are just generally kind of hard to work with.
This creates classes for each type of transaction, and moves almost all of the logic to them. These classes are simpler and more focused than the old stuff was, and can organize related code better.
This starts inching toward defining `CoreTransactions` for features shared across applications. It only defines the "Create" transaction so far, but at some point I plan to move all the other shared transactions to Core and let them control which objects they're available for.
Test Plan:
- Created pastes with web UI and API.
- Edited all paste properites.
- Archived/activated.
- Verified files got reasonable names.
- Reviewed timeline and feed.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9789
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16111
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 T10004. Tweaks some of the UX a little to be more intuitive/inviting?
- Button says "Configure Form" instead of "Actions".
- Root list is less "developer-ey" and more "explain what this is for-ey".
Test Plan:
{F1028928}
{F1028929}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14808
Summary:
Ref T9964. Three goals here:
- Make it easier to supply Conduit documentation.
- Make automatic documentation for `*.edit` endpoints more complete, particularly for custom fields.
- Allow type resolution via Conduit types, so you can pass `["alincoln"]` to "subscribers" instead of needing to use PHIDs.
Test Plan:
- Viewed and used all search and edit endpoints, including custom fields.
- Used parameter type resolution to set subscribers to user "dog" instead of "PHID-USER-whatever".
- Viewed HTTP parameter documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14796
Summary: Ref T9964. Add a `setIsConduitOnly()` method so we can mark a field as API-only.
Test Plan:
- Created and edited pastes via web UI (no status field).
- Adjusted status via web UI action.
- Adjusted status via Conduit API.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14788
Summary: Makes this more consistent. Also clean up spacing. Ref T9414
Test Plan: Archive/Activate Paste, Edit Paste
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9414
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14724
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. Fixes T5622. This allows you to copy some fields (projects, subscribers, custom fields, some per-application) from another object when creating a new object by passing the `?template=xyz` parameter.
Extend "copy" support to work with all custom fields.
Test Plan:
- Created new pastes, packages, tasks using `?template=...`
- Viewed new template docs page.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5622, T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14699
Summary:
Ref T9132. This just replaces the "Add Comment" form in Paste with a generic flow in EditEngine.
No actual field-awareness or action stacking or anything quite yet, but that will come in a bit. This mildly regresses drafts (which don't seem like a big deal for Pastes). I'll hook those up again in the next diff, but I want to build them in a better way that will work with multiple actions in a generic way, and solve T5031.
Big practical advantage here is that applications don't need copy/pasted preview controllers.
Test Plan:
- Saw previews.
- Added comments.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14637
Summary:
Fixes T9799. Currently, if you can't see an application like Paste, we fatal when trying to generate a result for `conduit.query`, because the new EditEngine-based `paste.edit` method doesn't "know" that it's a "Paste" method.
Straighten this out, and use policies and queries a little more correctly/consistently.
Test Plan:
- Called `conduit.query` as a user who does not have permission to use Paste.
- Before change: fatal.
- After change: results, excluding "paste.*" methods.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: cburroughs
Maniphest Tasks: T9799
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14492
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 T9132. Although forms do generally support prefilling right now, you have to guess how to do it.
Provide an explicit action showing you which values are supported and how to prefill them. This is generated automatically when an application switches to ApplicationEditor.
Test Plan:
{F939804}
{F939805}
{F939806}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14392
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T4768. This is a rough v0 of ApplicationEditor, which replaces the edit workflow in Paste.
This mostly looks and works like ApplicationSearch, and is heavily modeled on it.
Roughly, we define a set of editable fields and the ApplicationEditor stuff builds everything else.
This has no functional changes, except:
- I removed "Fork Paste" since I don't think it's particularly useful now that pastes are editable. We could restore it if users miss it.
- Subscribers are now editable.
- Form field order is a little goofy (this will be fixed in a future diff).
- Subscribers and projects are now race-resistant.
The race-resistance works like this: instead of submitting just the new value ("subscribers=apple, dog") and doing a set operation ("set subscribers = apple, dog"), we submit the old and new values ("original=apple" + "new=apple, dog") then apply the user's changes as an add + remove ("add=dog", "remove=<none>"). This means that two users who do "Edit Paste" at around the same time and each add or remove a couple of subscribers won't overwrite each other, unless they actually add or remove the exact same subscribers (in which case their edits legitimately conflict). Previously, the last user to save would win, and whatever was in their field would overwrite the prior state, potentially losing the first user's edits.
Test Plan:
- Created pastes.
- Created pastes via API.
- Edited pastes.
- Edited every field.
- Opened a paste in two windows and did project/subscriber edits in each, saved in arbitrary order, had edits respected.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4768, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14390
