Summary: Depends on D19921. Ref T11351. Ref T13065. Update Pholio to use the shared mail infrastructure. See D19670 for a previous change in this vein.
Test Plan: Ran upgrade, spot-checked that everything made it into the new table alive.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13065, T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19922
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 T11351. In Pholio, we currently use a `mockID`, but a `mockPHID` is generally preferable / more modern / more flexible. In particular, we need PHIDs to load handles and prefer PHIDs when exposing information to the API, and using PHIDs internally makes a bunch of things easier/better/faster and ~nothing harder/worse/slower.
I'll add some inlines about a few things.
Test Plan: Ran migrations, spot-checked database for sanity. Loaded Pholio, saw data unchanged. Created and edited images.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19914
Summary:
Depends on D19893. Ref T13222. See PHI873. A challenge is "answered" if you provide a valid response. A challenge is "completed" if we let you through the MFA check and do whatever actual action the check is protecting.
If you only have one MFA factor, challenges will be "completed" immediately after they are "answered". However, if you have two or more factors, it's possible to "answer" one or more prompts, but fewer than all of the prompts, and end up with "answered" challenges that are not "completed".
In the future, it may also be possible to answer all the challenges but then have an error occur before they are marked "completed" (for example, a unique key collision in the transaction code). For now, nothing interesting happens between "answered" and "completed". This would take the form of the caller explicitly providing flags like "wait to mark the challenges as completed until I do something" and "okay, mark the challenges as completed now".
This change prevents all token reuse, even on the same workflow. Future changes will let the answered challenges "stick" to the client form so you don't have to re-answer challenges for a short period of time if you hit a unique key collision.
Test Plan:
- Used a token to get through an MFA gate.
- Tried to go through another gate, was told to wait for a long time for the next challenge window.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19894
Summary:
Depends on D19912. Ref T11351. Images currently use `getMock()->getPolicy()` stuff to define policies. This causes bugs with object policies like "Subscribers", since the policy engine tries to evaluate the subscribers //for the image// when the intent is to evaluate the subscribers for the mock.
Move this to ExtendedPolicies to fix the behavior, and give Images sensible policy behavior when they aren't attached to a mock (specifically: only the user who created the image can see it).
Test Plan: Applied migrations, created and edited mocks and images without anything blowing up. Set mock visibility to "Subscribers", everything worked great.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19913
Summary:
Depends on D19888. Ref T13222. When we issue an MFA challenge, prevent the user from responding to it in the context of a different workflow: if you ask for MFA to do something minor (award a token) you can't use the same challenge to do something more serious (launch nukes).
This defuses highly-hypothetical attacks where the attacker:
- already controls the user's session (since the challenge is already bound to the session); and
- can observe MFA codes.
One version of this attack is the "spill coffee on the victim when the code is shown on their phone, then grab their phone" attack. This whole vector really strains the bounds of plausibility, but it's easy to lock challenges to a workflow and it's possible that there's some more clever version of the "spill coffee" attack available to more sophisticated social engineers or with future MFA factors which we don't yet support.
The "spill coffee" attack, in detail, is:
- Go over to the victim's desk.
- Ask them to do something safe and nonsuspicious that requires MFA (sign `L123 Best Friendship Agreement`).
- When they unlock their phone, spill coffee all over them.
- Urge them to go to the bathroom to clean up immediately, leaving their phone and computer in your custody.
- Type the MFA code shown on the phone into a dangerous MFA prompt (sign `L345 Eternal Declaration of War`).
- When they return, they may not suspect anything (it would be normal for the MFA token to have expired), or you can spill more coffee on their computer now to destroy it, and blame it on the earlier spill.
Test Plan:
- Triggered signatures for two different documents.
- Got prompted in one, got a "wait" in the other.
- Backed out of the good prompt, returned, still prompted.
- Answered the good prompt.
- Waited for the bad prompt to expire.
- Went through the bad prompt again, got an actual prompt this time.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19889
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Ref T9770.
Currently, we support only TOTP MFA. For some MFA (SMS and "push-to-app"-style MFA) we may need to keep track of MFA details (e.g., the code we SMS'd you). There isn't much support for that yet.
We also currently allow free reuse of TOTP responses across sessions and workflows. This hypothetically enables some "spyglass" attacks where you look at someone's phone and type the code in before they do. T9770 discusses this in more detail, but is focused on an attack window starting when the user submits the form. I claim the attack window opens when the TOTP code is shown on their phone, and the window between the code being shown and being submitted is //much// more interesting than the window after it is submitted.
To address both of these cases, start tracking MFA "Challenges". These are basically a record that we asked you to give us MFA credentials.
For TOTP, the challenge binds a particular timestep to a given session, so an attacker can't look at your phone and type the code into their browser before (or after) you do -- they have a different session. For now, this means that codes are reusable in the same session, but that will be refined in the future.
For SMS / push, the "Challenge" would store the code we sent you so we could validate it.
This is mostly a step on the way toward one-shot MFA, ad-hoc MFA in comment action stacks, and figuring out what's going on with Duo.
Test Plan:
- Passed MFA normally.
- Passed MFA normally, simultaneously, as two different users.
- With two different sessions for the same user:
- Opened MFA in A, opened MFA in B. B got a "wait".
- Submitted MFA in A.
- Clicked "Wait" a bunch in B.
- Submitted MFA in B when prompted.
- Passed MFA normally, then passed MFA normally again with the same code in the same session. (This change does not prevent code reuse.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T9770
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19886
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T13225. We store a digest of the session key in the session table (not the session key itself) so that users with access to this table can't easily steal sessions by just setting their cookies to values from the table.
Users with access to the database can //probably// do plenty of other bad stuff (e.g., T13134 mentions digesting Conduit tokens) but there's very little cost to storing digests instead of live tokens.
We currently digest session keys with HMAC-SHA1. This is fine, but HMAC-SHA256 is better. Upgrade:
- Always write new digests.
- We still match sessions with either digest.
- When we read a session with an old digest, upgrade it to a new digest.
In a few months we can throw away the old code. When we do, installs that skip upgrades for a long time may suffer a one-time logout, but I'll note this in the changelog.
We could avoid this by storing `hmac256(hmac1(key))` instead and re-hashing in a migration, but I think the cost of a one-time logout for some tiny subset of users is very low, and worth keeping things simpler in the long run.
Test Plan:
- Hit a page with an old session, got a session upgrade.
- Reviewed sessions in Settings.
- Reviewed user logs.
- Logged out.
- Logged in.
- Terminated other sessions individually.
- Terminated all other sessions.
- Spot checked session table for general sanity.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13225, T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19883
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. I'm preparing to introduce a new MFA "Challenge" table which stores state about challenges we've issued (to bind challenges to sessions and prevent most challenge reuse).
This table will reference sessions (since each challenge will be bound to a particular session) but sessions currently don't have PHIDs. Give them PHIDs and slightly modernize some related code.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Verified table got PHIDs.
- Used `var_dump()` to dump an organic user session.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19881
Summary: Ref T13218. This is like `loadOneWhere(...)` but with more dark magic. Get rid of it.
Test Plan:
- Forced `20130219.commitsummarymig.php` to hit this code and ran it with `bin/storage upgrade --force --apply ...`.
- Ran `20130409.commitdrev.php` with `bin/storage upgrade --force --apply ...`.
- Called `user.search` to indirectly get primary email information.
- Did not test Releeph at all.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13218
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19876
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI996. Ref T10743. For context, perhaps see T12171.
Node changed some signatures, behaviors, and error handling here in recent versions. As far as I can tell:
- The `script.runInNewContext(...)` method has never taken a `path` parameter, and passing the path has always been wrong.
- The `script.runInNewContext(...)` method started taking an `[options]` parameter at some point, and validating it, so the bad `path` parameter now throws.
- `vm.createScript(...)` is "soft deprecated" but basically fine, and keeping it looks more compatible.
This seems like the smallest and most compatible correct change.
Test Plan: Under Node 10, started Aphlict. Before: fatal error on bad `options` parameter to `runInNewContext()` (expected dictionary). After: notification server starts.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T10743
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19860
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 T13216. See PHI985. If you disable cookies in Firefox, accessing `window.localStorage` throws an exception. Currently, this pretty much kills all scripts on the page.
Instead, catch and ignore this, as though `window.localStorage` was not defined.
Test Plan:
- Set Firefox to "no cookies".
- Loaded any page while logged out.
- Before: JS fatal early in the stack.
- After: page loads and JS works.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19832
Summary:
Ref T13216. See PHI985. When you click a line number to start an inline comment, we intend to initiate the action only if you used the left mouse button (desktop) or a touch (tablet/device).
We currently have a `not right` condition for doing this, but it only excludes right clicks, not middle clicks (or other nth-button clicks). The `not right` condition was sligthly easier to write, but use an `is left` condition instead of a `not right` condition.
Test Plan:
- In Safari, Firefox and Chrome:
- Used left click to start an inline.
- Used middle click to do nothing (previously: started an inline).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19836
Summary:
See PHI975. Ref T13216. Ref T2543. Previously, see D19204 and PHI433.
When you're acting on a draft revision, we change the button text to "Submit Quietly" as a hint that your actions don't generate notifications yet.
However, this isn't accurate when one of your actions is "Request Review", which causes the revision to publish.
Allow actions to override the submit button text, and make the "Request Review" action change the button text to "Publish Revision".
The alternative change I considered was to remove the word "Quietly" in all cases.
I'm not //thrilled// about how complex this change is to adjust one word, but the various pieces are all fairly clean individually. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to use it for anything else, but I do suspect that the word "Quietly" was the change in D19204 with the largest effect by far (see T10000).
Test Plan:
- Created a draft revision. Saw "Submit Quietly" text.
- Added a "Request Review" action, saw it change to "Publish Revision".
- Reloaded page, saw stack saved and "Publish Revision".
- Removed action, saw "Submit Quietly".
- Repeated on a non-draft revision, button stayed put as "Submit".
- Submitted the various actions, saw them have the desired effects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19810
Summary: See PHI977. Ref T13216. Some text, like long package names, may overflow hovercards. Add overflow CSS behaviors to remedy this.
Test Plan:
Before:
{F6012699}
After:
{F6012700}
(You can use `/search/hovercard/` to render hovercards in a handy standalone way.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19809
Summary:
Fixes T8440. See that task for discussion.
Ref T13216. See PHI976.
Test Plan:
In Chrome, hovered a timestamp and moved the mouse up to the "overlap" area (see T8440). Before: flickered like crazy. After: no flickering.
(I couldn't reproduce the original issue in modern Firefox or Safari.)
Reviewers: amckinley, avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T8440, T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19808
Summary:
Ref T13216. See PHI959. These two recent migrations can be expressed more efficiently:
- When updating commit audit statuses, the field isn't JSON encoded or anything so we can just issue several bulk UPDATEs.
- When inserting mail keys, we can batch them in groups of 100.
Test Plan: Used `bin/storage upgrade -f --apply phabricator:...` to reapply patches. Saw equivalent behavior and faster runtimes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19802
Summary:
Ref T13217. This method is slightly tricky:
- We can't safely return a string: return an array instead.
- It no longer makes sense to accept glue. All callers use `', '` as glue anyway, so hard-code that.
Then convert all callsites.
Test Plan: Browsed around, saw fewer "unsafe" errors in error log.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19784
Summary:
Depends on D19779. Ref T13216. The push logs currently record the "hostWait", which is roughly "locking + subprocess cost". We also record locking separately, so we can figure out "subprocess cost" alone by subtracting the lock costs.
However, the subprocess (normally `git receive-pack`) runs hooks, and we don't have an easy way to figure out how much time was spent doing actual `git` stuff vs spent doing commit hook processing. This would have been useful in diagnosing at least one recent issue.
Track at least a rough hook cost and record it in the push logs.
Test Plan: Pushed to a repository, saw a reasonable hook cost appear in the database table.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19780
Summary:
Depends on D19778. Ref T13216. See PHI943, PHI889, et al.
We currently have a push log and a pull log, but do not separately log intracluster synchronization events. We've encountered several specific cases where having this kind of log would be helpful:
- In PHI943, an install was accidentally aborting locks early. Having timing information in the sync log would let us identify this more quickly.
- In PHI889, an install hit an issue with `MaxStartups` configuration in `sshd`. A log would let us identify when this is an issue.
- In PHI889, I floated a "push the linux kernel + fetch timeout" theory. A sync log would let us see sync/fetch timeouts to confirm this being a problem in practice.
- A sync log will help us assess, develop, test, and monitor intracluster routing sync changes (likely those in T13211) in the future.
Some of these events are present in the pull log already, but only if they make it as far as running a `git upload-pack` subprocess (not the case with `MaxStartups` problems) -- and they can't record end-to-end timing.
No UI yet, I'll add that in a future change.
Test Plan:
- Forced all operations to synchronize by adding `|| true` to the version check.
- Pulled, got a sync log in the database.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19779
Summary:
See <https://hackerone.com/reports/434116>. Slowvote has a piece of Javascript that attempts to let you vote on `{V123}` polls inline.
It does not work: nothing ever triggers it (nothing renders a control with a `slowvote-option` sigil).
At least for now, just remove it. It has a completely separate pathway in the controller and both pathways are buggy, so this makes fixing them easier.
Test Plan: Voted in plurality and approval polls via Slowvote and the embedded widget.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19773
Summary:
Fixes T13208. See that task for details.
The `clone $query` line is safe if `$query` is a builtin query (like "open").
However, if it's a saved query we clone not only the query parameters but the ID, too. Then when we `save()` the query later, we overwrite the original query.
So this would happen in the database. First, you run a query and save it as the workboard default (query key "abc123"):
| 123 | abc123 | {"...xxx..."} |
Then we `clone` it and change the parameters, and `save()` it. But that causes an `UPDATE ... WHERE id = 123` and the table now looks like this:
| 123 | def456 | {"...yyy..."} |
What we want is to create a new query instead, with an `INSERT ...`:
| 123 | abc123 | {"...xxx..."} |
| 124 | def456 | {"...yyy..."} |
Test Plan:
- Followed reproduction steps from above.
- With just the new `save()` guard, hit the guard error.
- With the `newCopy()`, got a new copy of the query and "View as Query" remained functional without overwriting the original query row.
- Ran migration, saw an affected board get fixed.
Reviewers: amckinley, joshuaspence
Reviewed By: joshuaspence
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13208
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19768
Summary:
Depends on D19751. Ref T13210. When Drydock needs to reclaim an existing unused resource in order to build a new resource to satisfy a lease, the lease which triggered the reclaim currently gets thrown back into the pool with a 15-second yield.
If the queue is pretty empty and the reclaim is quick, this can mean that we spend up to 15 extra seconds just waiting for the lease update task to get another shot at building a resource (the resource reclaim may complete in a second or two, but nothing else happens until the yield ends).
Instead, when a lease triggers a reclaim, have the reclaim reawaken the lease task when it completes. In the best case, this saves us 15 seconds of waiting. In other cases (the task already completed some other way, the resource gets claimed before the lease gets to it), it's harmless.
Test Plan:
- Allocated A, A, A working copies with limit 3. Leased a B working copy.
- Before patch: allocation took ~32 seconds.
- After patch: allocation takes ~17 seconds (i.e., about 15 seconds less).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13210
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19752
Summary: Ref T13197. See PHI873. I want to give RepositoryOperation objects access to Drydock logging like leases, resources, and blueprints currently have. This just does the schema/query changes, no actual UI or new logging yet.
Test Plan: Ran storage upgrade, poked around the UI looking for anything broken.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19671
Summary:
Depends on D19661. Ref T13077. See PHI840.
When a user edits a page normally, add a "Save as Draft" button. Much of this change is around making that button render and behave properly: it needs to be an `<input type="submit" ...>` so browsers submit it and we can figure out which button the user clicked.
Then there are a few minor rules:
- If you're editing a page which is already a draft, we only give you "Save as Draft". This makes edits to update/revise a draft more natural.
- Highlight "Publish" if it's a likely action that you might want to take.
Internally, there are two types of edits. Both types create a new version with the new content. However:
- A "content" edit sets the version shown on the live page to the newly-created version.
- A "draft" edit does not update the version shown on the live page.
Test Plan: Edited a published document, edited the draft. Published documents. Reverted documents.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19662
Summary:
Depends on D19659. Fixes T1894. Ref T13077. See PHI840.
- Add an EditEngine, although it currently supports no fields.
- Add (basic, top-level-only) commenting (we already had the table in the database).
This will probably create some issues. I'm most concerned about documents accumulating a ton of old, irrelevant comments over time which are hard to keep track of and no longer relevant. But I think this is probably a step forward in almost all cases, and a good thing on the balance.
This also moves us incrementally toward putting all editing on top of EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F5877347}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T1894
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19660
Summary: Depends on D19652. Ref T13197. See PHI851. This migrates the actual `auditStatus` on Commits, and older status transactions.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Spot-checked the database for sanity.
- Ran some different queries, got unchanged results from before migration.
- Reviewed historic audit state transactions, and accepted/raised concern on new audits. All state transactions appeared to generate properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19655
Summary: Depends on D19651. Ref T13197. The application now accepts either numeric or string values. However, for consistency and to reduce surprise in the future, migrate existing saved queries to use string values.
Test Plan: Saved some queries on `master` with numeric constants, ran the migration, saw string constants in the database and equivalent behavior in the UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19652
Summary: See PHI871. Ref T13197. These sections are only divided visually and don't have textual headers. Add aural headers.
Test Plan: {F5875471}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19654
Summary:
Ref T13195. If a Phriction page begins with a code block, the `clear: both;` currently makes it clear the action list.
Instead, use table-cell layout on desktops.
Test Plan: Viewed a Phriction page with an initial code block on desktop/tablet/mobile/printable layouts. Now got more sensible layouts in all cases.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: GoogleLegacy
Maniphest Tasks: T13195
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19649
The unique key on <documentPHID, version> may fail to apply if any content
rows don't have a valid document. This is rare, but we have some old random
garbage rows on "secure.phabricator.com" which prevent the next patch from
applying. Just toss these rows, they're junk.
Summary:
Ref T13077. We need to know the maximum version of a document in several cases, so denormalize it onto the Document object.
Then clean up some behaviors where we edit a document with, e.g., 7 versions but version 5 is currently published. For now, we: edit starting with version 7, save as version 8, and immediately publish the new version.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration.
- Edited a draft page without hitting any weird version errors.
- Checked database for sensible `maxVersion` values.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19625
Summary:
See T13193. See T13077. If we drop a column which is part of a UNIQUE KEY, MariaDB raises an error.
This is probably a bad idea on our side anyway, but in this case it wasn't an obviously bad idea.
To get around this:
- Drop the unique key, if it exists, before dropping the column.
- Explicitly add the new unique key afterward.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/storage upgrade` locally without issue, but I'm on MySQL. Will follow up on T13193.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19624
Summary: Depends on D19621. Ref T13077. Fixes T4815. This adds previous/current/next/draft buttons and makes navigation between unpublished and published versions of a document more clear.
Test Plan: {F5841997}
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T4815
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19622
Summary: Depends on D19619. Ref T13065. Ref T13077. Migrate Phriction mail keys to the new infrastructure and drop the column.
Test Plan: Ran migrations, spot-checked the database.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T13065
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19620
Summary:
Ref T13077. This is mostly just a small cleanup change, even though the actual change is large.
We currently reference content and document objects from one another with `contentID` and `documentID`, but this means that `contentID` must be nullable. Switching to PHIDs allows the column to be non-nullable.
This also supports reorienting some current and future transactions around PHIDs, which is preferable for the API. In particular, I'm adding a "publish version X" transaction soon, and would rather callers pass a PHID than an ID or version number, since this will make the API more consistent and powerful.
Today, `contentID` gets used as a cheaty way to order documents by (content) edit time. Since PHIDs aren't orderable and stuff is going to become actually-revertible soon, replace this with an epoch timestamp.
Test Plan:
- Created, edited, moved, retitled, and deleted Phriction documents.
- Grepped for `documentID` and `contentID`.
- This probably breaks //something// but I'll be in this code for a bit and am likely to catch whatever breaks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19619
Summary:
Depends on D19616. Ref T13077. Fixes T8172. In the last round of design updates, a lot of actions got stuffed into "Actions" menus.
I never really got used to these and think they're a net usability loss, and broadly agree with the feedback in T8172. I'd generally like to move back toward a state where actions are available on the page, not hidden in a menu.
For now, just put a curtain view on these pages. This could be refined later (e.g., stick this menu to the right hand side of the screen) depending on where other Phriction changes go.
(Broadly, I'm also not satisfied with where we ended up on the fixed-width pages like Diffusion > Manage, Config, and Instances. In contrast, I //do// like where we ended up with Phortune in terms of overall design. I anticipate revisiting some of this stuff eventually.)
Test Plan:
- Looked at Phriction pages on desktop/tablet/mobile/printable -- actions are now available on the page.
- Looked at other DocumentView pages (like Phame blogs) -- no changes for now.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T8172
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19617
Summary: Ref T13189. See PHI710. Ref T13088. Fixes T9951. Allow callers to `harbormaster.sendmessage` to specify that the test details are remarkup so they can use rich formatting and include links, files, etc.
Test Plan: {F5840098}
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13189, T13088, T9951
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19615
Summary: Ref T13189. See PHI690. When a lease is first acquired or activated, note the time. This supports better visibility into queue lengths. For now, this is only queryable via DB and visible in the UI, but can be more broadly exposed in the future.
Test Plan: Landed a revision, saw the leases get sensible timestamps for acquisition/activation.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13189
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19613
Summary:
Ref T13187. See PHI836. The "action" comment actions in Differential (Accept, Reject, etc) render a single line of descriptive text. This is currently slightly misaligned.
Give it similar sizing information to the label element to the left, so it lines up properly.
Test Plan:
Note that "Request Review" and "This revision will be..." are now aligned:
{F5828077}
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13187
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19600
Summary:
Depends on D19594. See PHI823. Ref T13164.
- Add a label for the "X" button in comment areas, like "Remove Action: Change Subscribers".
- Add a label for the floating header display options menu in Differential.
- Add `role="button"` to `PHUIButtonView` objects that we render with an `<a ...>` tag.
Test Plan:
Viewed a revision with `?__aural__=true`:
- Saw "Remove Action: ..." label.
- Saw "Display Options" label.
- Used inspector to verify that some `<a class="button" ...>` now have `<a class="button" role="button" ...>`. This isn't exhaustive, but at least improves things. A specific example is the "edit", "reply", etc., actions on inline comments.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19595
Summary:
Ref T13164. See PHI748. Path validation has a 750ms timeout which blames to rP5038ab850c, in 2011.
Production path validation is sometimes taking more than 750ms, particularly on the initial page load where we may validate many paths simultaneously.
I have no idea why we have this timeout, and it isn't consistent with how we perform other AJAX requests. Just remove it.
Test Plan:
- Reproduced issue in production, saw all validation calls failing at 750ms. Actual underlying calls succeed, they just take more than 750ms to resolve.
- Loaded path validator locally, got green checkmark.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19575
Summary:
Ref T13164. See PHI693. In Differential, you can {nav View Options > View Standalone} to get a standalone view of a single changeset. You can also arrive here via the big changeset list for revisions affecting a huge number of files.
We currently suggest that all the keyboard shortcuts work, but some do not. In particular, the "Next File" and "Previous File" keyboard shortcuts (and some similar shortcuts) do not work. In the main view, the next/previous files are on the same page. In the standalone view, we'd need to actually change the URI.
Ideally, we should do this (and, e.g., put prev/next links on the page). As a first step toward that, hide the nonfunctional shortcuts to stop users from being misled.
Test Plan:
- Viewed a revision in normal and standalone views.
- No changes in normal view, and all keys still work ("N", "P", etc).
- In standalone view, "?" no longer shows nonfunctional key commands.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19571
Summary: Ref T12164. Defines a new manual activity that suggests rebuilding repository identities before Phabricator begins to rely on them.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration, observed expected setup issue: {F5788217}
- Ran `bin/config done identities` and observed setup issue get marked as done.
- Ran `/bin/storage upgrade --apply phabricator:20170912.ferret.01.activity.php` to make sure I didn't break the reindex migration; observed reindex setup issue appear as expected.
- Ran `./bin/config done reindex` and observed reindex issue cleared as expected.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T12164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19497
Summary:
Ref T13164. See PHI774. Fixes T12435.
Since Phriction is hierarchical, there isn't a super strong motivation to support Spaces: you can generally set policies on a small number of documents to get the desired effective policy behavior.
However, it still improves consistency and there's no reason //not// to support Spaces. In the case where you have some moderately weird/complex policy on one or more Spaces, using Spaces to define the policy behavior can make things a bit simpler and easier to understand.
This probably doesn't actually fix whatever the root problem in T12435 was (complicated, non-hierarchical access policies?). See also a bunch of discussion in T12442. So we might end up going beyond this to address other use cases, but I think this is reasonable regardless.
Test Plan: Created and edited Phriction documents and shifted them between Spaces. Searched by Space, etc.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13164, T12435
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19553
