Summary:
Ref T13222. Fixes T12588. See PHI683. In several cases, we present the user with a choice between multiple major options: Alamnac service types, Drydock blueprint types, Repository VCS types, Herald rule types, etc.
Today, we generally do this with radio buttons and a "Submit" button. This isn't terrible, but often it means users have to click twice (once on the radio; once on submit) when a single click would be sufficient. The radio click target can also be small.
In other cases, we have a container with a link and we'd like to link the entire container: notifications, the `/drydock/` console, etc. We'd like to just link the entire container, but this causes some problems:
- It's not legal to link block eleements like `<a><div> ... </div></a>` and some browsers actually get upset about it.
- We can `<a><span> ... </span></a>` instead, then turn the `<span>` into a block element with CSS -- and this sometimes works, but also has some drawbacks:
- It's not great to do that for screenreaders, since the readable text in the link isn't necessarily very meaningful.
- We can't have any other links inside the element (e.g., details or documentation).
- We can `<form><button> ... </button></form>` instead, but this has its own set of problems:
- You can't right-click to interact with a button in the same way you can with a link.
- Also not great for screenreaders.
Instead, try adding a `linked-container` behavior which just means "when users click this element, pretend they clicked the first link inside it".
This gives us natural HTML (real, legal HTML with actual `<a>` tags) and good screenreader behavior, but allows the effective link target to be visually larger than just the link.
If no issues crop up with this, I'd plan to eventually use this technique in more places (Repositories, Herald, Almanac, Drydock, Notifications menu, etc).
Test Plan:
{F6053035}
- Left-clicked and command-left-clicked the new JS fanciness, got sensible behaviors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19855
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. After D19853, "Create Subtask" may pop a dialog to let you choose between multiple forms.
Allow users to configure which forms are available by using `maniphest.subtypes` to choose available children for each subtype. Users may either specify particular subtypes or specific forms.
Test Plan: Configured "Quest" tasks to have "Objective" children, got appropriate prompt behavior. Used "subtypes" and "forms" to select forms; used "forms" to reorder forms.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19854
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. Currently, "Create Subtask" always uses the first edit form that the user has access to for the same task subtype. (For example, if you "Create Subtask" from a "Bug", you get the first edit form for "Bugs".)
I didn't want to go too crazy with the initial subtype implementation, but it seems like we're generally on firm ground and it's working fairly well: user requests are for more flexibility in using the system as implemented, not changes to the system or confusion/difficulty with any of the tradeoffs. Thus, I'm generally comfortable continuing to build it out in the same direction. To improve flexibility, I want to make the options from "Create Subtask" more flexible/configurable.
I plan to let you specify that a given subtype (say, "Quest") prompts you with creation options for a set of other subtypes (say, "Objective"), or prompts you with a particular set of forms.
If we end up with a single option, we just go into the current flow (directly to the edit form). If we end up with more than one option, we prompt the user to choose between them.
This change is a first step toward this:
- When building "Create Subtask", query for multiple forms.
- The default behavior is now "prompt user to choose among create forms of the same subtype". Previously, it was "use the first edit form of the same subtype". This is a behavioral change.
- The next change will make the selected forms configurable.
- (I also plan to make the dialog itself less rough.)
Test Plan: {F6051067}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19853
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: Ref T13077. There is no "PHUIDocumentView" so toss the "Pro" suffix from this classname.
Test Plan: Grepped for `PHUIDocumentView` and `PHUIDocumentViewPro`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19616
Summary:
Depends on D19607. Ref T13189. See PHI642. Ref T13186.
Some transactions can sometimes be applied to objects you can not edit. Currently, using `*.edit` to edit an object always explicitly requires CAN_EDIT.
Now that individual transactions require CAN_EDIT by default and can reduce or replace this requirement, stop requiring CAN_EDIT to reach the editor.
The only expected effect of this change is that low-permission edits (like disabling a user, leaving a project, or leaving a thread) can now work via `*.edit`.
Test Plan:
- Tried to perform a normal edit (changing a task title) against an object with no CAN_EDIT. Still got a permissions error.
- As a non-admin, disabled other users while holding the "Can Disable Users" permission.
- As a non-admin, got a permissions error while trying to disable other users while not holding the "Can Disable Users" permission.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13189, T13186
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19608
Summary: Depends on D19224. Ref T13106. Computing this is expensive and the value is not used. This came from D15432, but we never actually shipped that feature.
Test Plan: Saw local query cost drop from 139 to 110 with no change in functionality. Grepped for removed symbols.
Maniphest Tasks: T13106
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19225
Summary: See PHI433. Ref T13102. Users in the wild have mixed expecations about exactly what "draft" means. Recent changes have tried to make behavior more clear. As part of clarifying messaging, make it explicit that `@mention` does not work on drafts by showing users a warning when they try to `@mention` a user.
Test Plan:
- Mentioned users on drafts, got a warning.
- Posted normal comments on drafts, no warning.
- Posted normal/mention comments on non-drafts, no warning.
Maniphest Tasks: T13102
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19210
Summary: See PHI425. See T12678. This should be an integer, but may be a string.
Test Plan: Called `differential.revision.edit`, observed integer in result instead of string.
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19186
Summary: Fixes T13071. See that task for discusison. I think this `<= version` constraint is needless in normal cases (it should match everything in the table anyway), and slightly harmful in bizarre cases where a draft somehow gets a much larger ID than it should have.
Test Plan:
- Gave a draft an unreasonably large ID.
- Pre-patch, observed: submitting comments on the draft's object does not clear the draft.
- Post-patch: submitting comments on the draft's object now clears the draft correctly.
- Also added comments/actions, reloaded pages, saw drafts stick properly.
Maniphest Tasks: T13071
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19060
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. 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 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 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: https://admin.phacility.com/PHI243
Since our use case primarily focuses on transaction editing, this patch implements the `drydock.blueprint.edit` api method with the understanding that:
a) this is a work in progress
b) object editing is supported, but object creation is not yet implemented
Test Plan:
* updated existing blueprints via Conduit UI
* regression tested `maniphest.edit` by creating new and updating existing tasks
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, yelirekim, jcox
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18822
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: This simplifies EditEngine pages in general by removing the dual header, and extending to allow setting of a custom PHUIHeaderView if needed (like settings).
Test Plan:
Review all settings pages, review task, project pages. This should all be fine, but is a big change maybe some layouts I'm not considering. Tested these all mobile, destkop as well.
{F5166181}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18527
Summary: Simplifies the page, adds base support for PHUITwoColumn fixed from Instances (which I'll delete css there).
Test Plan:
click on every settings page, UI seems in tact, check mobile, desktop, mobile menus.
{F5102572}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18436
Summary: Moves Settings to use a normal side navigation vs. a two column side navigation. It also updates Edit Engine to do the same, but I don't think there are other callsites. Added a consistent header for better clarification if you were editng your settings, global settings, or a bot's settings.
Test Plan: Test each page on a personal account, create global settings, test each page there, create a bot account, and test each page on the bot account. Anything else?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18342
Summary:
Ref T12314. Open to counterdiffs / iterating / suggestions / skipping most or all of this, mostly just throwing this out there as a maybe-reasonable first pass.
When a task has a subtype (like "Plant" or "Animal"), provide some hints on the task list, workboards, and task detail.
To make these hints more useful, allow subtypes to have icons and colors.
Also use these icons and colors in the typeahead tokens.
The current rule is that we show the subtype if it's not the default subtype. Another rule we could use is "show the subtype if there's more than one subtype defined", but my guess is that most installs will mostly have something like "normal task" as the default subtype.
Test Plan:
The interfaces this affects are: task detail view, task list view, workboard cards, subtype typeahead.
{F3539128}
{F3539144}
{F3539167}
{F3539185}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: johnny-bit, bbrdaric, benwick, fooishbar
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17451
Summary:
Fixes T12369. When you create objects they may technically be locked: either because the default state is legitimately locked, or because the default policies prevent you from viewing so we sort of technically end in a locked state.
Regardless, don't prompt during creation, since this prompt isn't useful even if the lock detection is completely legitimate.
Test Plan:
- In {nav Applications > Maniphest > Configure}, set "Default View Policy" to "No One".
- Tried to create a task.
- Before patch: prompted to override lock.
- After patch: no override prompt.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: d.maznekov
Maniphest Tasks: T12369
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17541
Summary:
Ref T12335. See that task for discussion. Here are the behavioral changes:
- Statuses can be flagged with `locked`, which means that tasks in that status are locked to further discussion and interaction.
- A new "CAN_INTERACT" permission facilitates this. For most objects, "CAN_INTERACT" is just the same as "CAN_VIEW".
- For tasks, "CAN_INTERACT" is everyone if the status is a normal status, and no one if the status is a locked status.
- If a user doesn't have "Interact" permission:
- They can not submit the comment form.
- The comment form is replaced with text indicating "This thing is locked.".
- The "Edit" workflow prompts them.
This is a mixture of advisory and hard policy checks but sholuld represent a reasonable starting point.
Test Plan: Created a new "Locked" status, locked a task. Couldn't comment, saw lock warning, saw lock prompt on edit. Unlocked a task.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17453
Summary:
Ref T12335. Fixes T11207. Edit-like interactions which are not performed via "Edit <object>" are a bit of a grey area, policy-wise.
For example, you can correctly do these things to an object you can't edit:
- Comment on it.
- Award tokens.
- Subscribe or unsubscribe.
- Subscribe other users by mentioning them.
- Perform review.
- Perform audit.
- (Maybe some other stuff.)
These behaviors are all desirable and correct. But, particularly now that we offer stacked actions, you can do a bunch of other stuff which you shouldn't really be able to, like changing the status and priority of tasks you can't edit, as long as you submit the change via the comment form.
(Before the advent of stacked actions there were fewer things you could do via the comment form, and more of them were very "grey area", especially since "Change Subscribers" was just "Add Subscribers", which you can do via mentions.)
This isn't too much of a problem in practice because we won't //show// you those actions if the edit form you'd end up on doesn't have those fields. So on intalls like ours where we've created simple + advanced flows, users who shouldn't be changing task priorities generally don't see an option to do so, even though they technically could if they mucked with the HTML.
Change this behavior to be more strict: unless an action explicitly says that it doesn't need edit permission (comment, review, audit) don't show it to users who don't have edit permission and don't let them take the action.
Test Plan:
- As a user who could not edit a task, tried to change status via comment form; received policy exception.
- As a user who could not edit a task, viewed a comment form: no actions available (just "comment").
- As a user who could not edit a revision, viewed a revision form: only "review" actions available (accept, resign, etc).
- Viewed a commit form but these are kind of moot because there's no separate edit permission.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335, T11207
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17452
Summary:
Ref T12314. Ref T6064. Ref T11580. If an install defines several different task create forms (like "Create Plant" and "Create Animal"), allow any of them to be created directly onto a workboard column.
This is just a general consistency improvement that makes Custom Forms and Workboards work together a bit better. We might do something fancier eventually for T6064 (which wants fewer clicks) and/or T11580 (which wants per-workboard control over forms or defaults).
Test Plan:
- Created several different types of tasks directly onto a workboard.
- Faked just one create form, saw the UI unchanged (except that it respects any renaming).
{F3492928}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314, T11580, T6064
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17446
Summary:
Ref T12314. When we pick an "Edit" form for a subtyped object, only consider forms with the same subtype.
For example, editing an "Animal" uses the forms with subtype "animal" which are marked as edit forms.
This also makes "Create Subtask" carry the parent task's type.
Test Plan:
- Edited an Animal, got an animal edit form.
- Edited a normal task, got a normal task form.
- Edited a paste, got the normal workflow.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17445
Summary:
Ref T12314. Allow tasks to be queried by subtype using a typeahead.
Open to a better default icon. I'll probably let you configure them later.
Just hide this constraint if there's only one subtype.
Test Plan:
- Searched for subtypes.
- Verified that the control hides if there is only one subtype.
{F3492293}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17444
Summary:
Ref T12314. If you set a form to have the "plant" subtype, then create a task with it, save "plant" as the task subtype.
For Conduit, the default subtype is used by default, but a new "subtype" transaction is exposed. You can apply this transaction at create time to create an object of a certain subtype, or at any later time to change the subtype of an object.
This still doesn't do anything particularly useful or interesting.
Test Plan:
- Created a non-subtyped object (a Paste).
- Created "task" and "plant" tasks via different forms.
- Created "default" and "plant" tasks via Conduit.
- Changed the subtype of a task via Conduit.
- Tried to set a bad subtype.
{F3492061}
{F3492066}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17443
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: Ref T12314. Provides a field on tasks for storing subtypes. Does nothing interesting yet.
Test Plan:
- Ran storage upgrade.
- Created some tasks.
- Looked in the database.
- Used Conduit to query some tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17441
Summary:
Ref T12314. Builds toward letting you define "animal" and "plant" tasks.
This just adds some configuration. I'll probably add some more quality-of-life options (like "icon") later but these are the only bits I'm sure I'll need.
Test Plan:
- Configured sensible subtypes.
- Tried to configure bad subtypes: bad key, missing "default", duplicate keys. Got sensible error messages.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17440
Summary:
Ref T12314. This adds storage so EditEngine forms can later be marked as edit fields for particular types of objects (like an "animal edit form" vs a "plant edit form").
We'll take you to the right edit form when you click "Edit" by selecting among forms with the same subtype as the task.
This doesn't do anything very interesting on its own.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade`.
- Verified database got the field with proper values.
- Created a new form, checked the database.
- Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17439
Summary:
Fixes T12301. In D17372, this changed to use generic EditEngines instead of the proper runtime engine. Normally this doesn't matter, but can in this case.
After loading the configurations normally, swap their attached engines for the specific configured runtime engine we're currently executing.
Test Plan: Clicked "Create Form" from the Maniphest form list, saw it go to "Create Maniphest Form", not "Create Generic Meta-Form".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12301
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17398
Summary:
Fixes T12281. Some forms (like Settings) can't actually create new objects. Currently, though, you can select them and add them to profile menus; if you do, they fail when building an item.
Kick them out of the typeahead, and decline to render them in menus.
Test Plan:
Added "Create Settings" to a menu, no longer fatals after patch (item vanished from menu, still editable normally to get rid of it).
Tried to add another "Create Settings", no longer available in typehaead.
Added some normal stuff.
Viewed a choose-among-forms dropdown in Maniphest, which still worked normally.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12281
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17372
Summary:
Ref T12128. This adds validation to menu items.
This feels a touch flimsy-ish (kind of copy/paste heavy?) but maybe it can be cleaned up a bit once some similar lightweight modular item types (build steps in Harbormaster, blueprints in Drydock) convert.
Test Plan:
- Tried to create each item with errors (no dashboard, no project, etc). Got appropriate form errors.
- Created valid items of each type.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12128
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17235
Summary: Ref T5867. Instead of hard-coding projects, tasks and repositories, let EditEngines say "I want a quick create item" so third-party code can also hook into the menu without upstream changes.
Test Plan: Saw same default items in menu.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5867
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17215
Summary:
Fixes T12095. Ref T6660. The old code for this was specific to Differential, using the `DifferentialDraft` table.
Instead, make the `EditEngine` / `VersionedDraft` code create and remove a `<objectPHID, authorPHID>` edge when a particular author creates drafts.
Some applications have drafts beyond `VersionedDrafts`, notably inline comments. Before writing "yes, draft" or "no, no draft", ask the object if it has any custom draft stuff we need to know about.
This should fix all the yellow bubble bugs I created in T11114 and allow us to bring the feature to Audit fairly easily.
Test Plan: Created and deleted comments and inlines, reloading the list view after each change. Couldn't find a way to break the list view anymore.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12095, T6660
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17205
Summary: Add in some basic defaults, Tasks, Projects, Repositories... anything else? Also switches "manage" context if you are an admin or user. Hides link if you are not logged in.
Test Plan: Review Global/Personal in Favorites app, click on each link.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17174
Summary:
Ref T12074. The "v3" API methods (`*.search`, `*.edit`) are currently marked as "unstable", but they're pretty stable and essentially all new code should be using them.
Although these methods are seeing some changes, almost all changes are additive (support for new constraints or attachemnts) and do not break backward compatibility. We have no major, compatibility-breaking changes planned.
I don't want to mark the older methods "deprecated" yet since `arc` still uses a lot of them and there are some capabilities not yet available on the v3 methods, but introduce a new "frozen" status with pointers to the new methods.
Overall, this should gently push users toward the newer methods.
Test Plan: {F2325323}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12074
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17158
Summary: Adds a FormEditEngine MenuItem for adding forms to Projects, Home, QuickCreate. Also adds an EditEngine typeahead that has token rendering issues currently.
Test Plan: Set a normal form as a menu item, edit it, set the name. Set a custom form as a menu item, edit it, set a name.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17098
Summary:
Ref T11114. This restores:
- Commandeering should exeucte Herald.
- Commandeering should swap reviewers.
- "Request Review" on an "Accepted" revision should downgrade reviewers so they have to accept again.
Test Plan:
- Commandeered, saw Herald run and reviewers swap.
- Requested review of an accepted revision, saw it drop down to "Needs Review" with "Accepted Prior" on the reviewer.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17118
Summary: Ref T11114. This comments nearly working on EditEngine. Only significant issue I caught is that the "View" link doesn't render properly because it depends on JS which is tricky to hook up. I'll clean that up in a future diff.
Test Plan: {F2279201}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17116
Summary:
Ref T11114. Differential has more actions than it once did, and may have further actions in the future.
Make this dropdown a little easier to parse by grouping similar types of actions, like "Accept" and "Reject".
(The action order still needs to be tweaked a bit.)
Test Plan: {F2274526}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: eadler
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17114
Summary:
This has been replaced by `PolicyCodex` after D16830. Also:
- Rebuild Celerity map to fix grumpy unit test.
- Fix one issue on the policy exception workflow to accommodate the new code.
Test Plan:
- `arc unit --everything`
- Viewed policy explanations.
- Viewed policy errors.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16831
Summary:
Fixes T11812.
- Pull the logic for building the "Create Whatever" dropdown out.
- Use it to generate NUX buttons, too.
- Use the new logic in Paste and Maniphest.
Test Plan:
- Viewed Paste NUX, button worked.
- Viewed Maniphest NUX with multiple create forms, button worked.
Reviewers: chad, avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Subscribers: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T11812
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16797
