Summary:
Fixes T13027. Ref T2543. When revisions promote from "Draft" because builds finish or no builds are configured, the status currently switches from "Draft" to "Needs Review" without re-running Herald.
This means that some rules -- notably, "Send me an email" rules -- don't fire as soon as they should.
Instead of applying this promotion in a hacky way inline, queue it and apply it normally in a second edit, after the current group finishes.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision, reviewed Herald transcripts.
- Saw three Herald passes:
- First pass (revision creation) triggered builds and no email.
- Second pass (builds finished) did not trigger builds (no update) and did not trigger email (revision still a draft).
- Third pass (after promotion out of 'draft') did not trigger builds (no update) but did trigger email (revision no longer a draft).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13027, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18819
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:
Ref T2543. This doesn't stand alone since mail still goes out normally, but gets this piece working: new revisions start as "Draft", then after updates if there are no builds they go into "Needs Review".
This should work in general because builds update revisions when they complete, to publish a "Harbormaster finished build yada yada" transaction. So either we'll un-draft immediately, or un-draft after the last build finishes.
I'll hold this until the mail and some other stuff (like UI hints) are in slightly better shape since I think it's probably too rough on its own.
Test Plan: Created revisions locally, saw them un-draft after builds.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18628
Summary: Minor cleanup, this logic can be simpler. Instead of special-casing inlines as having an effect if the have a comment, just consider any transaction with a comment to have an effect. I'm fairly certain this is always true.
Test Plan: Made inlines, tried to submit empty comments. Behavior unchanged.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18468
Summary: Also changes access modifiers on `PhabricatorProjectTransactionEditor` and sets up `storage` for `applyExternalEffects`.
Test Plan: Created new projects, attempted to create without name, with too long of a name, and with a name that conflicts with other projects and observed expected errors.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T12673
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17947
Summary: Used by `PholioImageFileTransaction::mergeTransactions()`. I forgot to test adding multiple images to a Mock at the same time after migrating `mergeTransactions` over to the modular framework.
Test Plan: Added multiple images in a single transaction and didn't get an exception about accessing a protected function.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17946
Summary: Still needs some cleanup, but ready for review in broad outline form.
Test Plan:
Made lots of policy changes to the Badges application and confirmed expected rows in `application_xactions`, confirmed expected changes to `phabricator.application-settings`.
See example output (not quite working for custom policy objects) here:
{F4922240}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, chad, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T11476
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17757
Summary: See D17812, etc. We can figure this out by looking at the object carefully. We don't need to go delete all the old TYPE_COMMENT (it doesn't hurt anything) but can nuke it when we see it.
Test Plan:
- Made a comment in Slowvote (supports commenting).
- Viewed an Almanac device (does not support commenting).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17822
Summary: Moves participants over to ModularTransactions, simplified a lot of the code. Fixes T12550
Test Plan:
Create a new room with just myself and myself + fake accounts.
Remove a person.
Remove myself.
Edit a room, topic.
Type some messages.
???
Profit
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12550
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17685
Summary: Fixes T12439. This pathway was just missing a `setContinueOnMissingFields(...)` to skip enforcement of required fields.
Test Plan:
- Added a required custom field.
- Mentioned any task without a field value in a comment.
- Edited that comment.
- Saved changes.
- Before fix: fatal in log.
- After fix: clean edit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12439
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17536
Summary: Fixes T12347. Ref T12314. Validation gets called no matter what, but is only relevant if the form supports subtypes.
Test Plan: Marked/unmarked a Paste form as editable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12347, T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17457
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 T6049. This moves Phurl to modular transactions.
Test Plan: Everything works here, add phurl, edit phurl, use phurl. Test various error states. Left a TODO on the validate dupe keys, not sure how to implement that in modular-land.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T6049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17405
Summary:
Fixes T12302. Currently, we aren't merging multiple "AddAuditors" transactions correctly.
This can occur when Herald triggers multiple auditor rules.
Instead, merge them.
Test Plan:
- Wrote two different Herald rules that add auditors.
- Pushed a commit which triggered them.
- After the change, saw all the auditors get added correctly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12302
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17403
Summary:
Ref T11954. This is kind of complex and I'm not sure I want to actually land it, but it gives us a fairly good improvement for clustered repositories so I'm leaning toward moving forward.
When we make (or receive) clustered repository requests, we must first load a bunch of stuff out of Almanac to figure out where to send the request (or if we can handle the request ourselves).
This involves several round trip queries into Almanac (service, device, interfaces, bindings, properties) and generally is fairly slow/expensive. The actual data we get out of it is just a list of URIs.
Caching this would be very easy, except that invalidating the cache is difficult, since editing any binding, property, interface, or device may invalidate the cache for indirectly connected services and repositories.
To address this, introduce `PhabricatorCacheEngine`, which is an extensible engine like `PhabricatorDestructionEngine` for propagating cache updates. It has two modes:
- Discover linked objects (that is: find related objects which may need to have caches invalidated).
- Invalidate caches (that is: nuke any caches which need to be nuked).
Both modes are extensible, so third-party code can build repository-dependent caches or whatever. This may be overkill but even if Almanac is the only thing we use it for it feels like a fairly clean solution to the problem.
With `CacheEngine`, make any edit to Almanac stuff propagate up to the Service, and then from the Service to any linked Repositories.
Once we hit repositories, invalidate their caches when Almanac changes.
Test Plan:
- Observed a 20-30ms performance improvement with `ab -n 100`.
- (The main page making Conduit calls also gets a performance improvement, although that's a little trickier to measure directly.)
- Added debugging code to the cache engine stuff to observe the linking and invalidation phases.
- Made invalidation throw; verified that editing properties, bindings, etc, properly invalidates the cache of any indirectly linked repositories.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11954
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17000
Summary:
Ref T11816. Currently, if someone in California creates an event and then someone in New York edits it, we generate a no-op "<user> changed the start time from 3PM to 3PM." transaction.
This is because the internal timezone of the event is changing, but the actual absolute time is not.
Instead, when an edit wouldn't reschedule an event and would only change the internal timezone, ignore the edit.
Test Plan:
- Edited non-all-day events in PST / EST with out making changes (ignored).
- Edited non-all-day events in PST / EST with changes (changes worked).
- Performed the same edits with all-day events, which also were ignored and worked, respectively.
- Pulled events in and out of all-day mode in different timezones, behavior seemeed reasonable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11816
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16955
Summary: Ref T7643. When we send mail about a change to a package description, allow it to say "CHANGES TO PACKAGE DESCRIPTION" instead of "EDIT DETAILS". Smooth!
Test Plan: {F1909417}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7643
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16818
Summary:
Ref T11179. This splits "Edit Blocking Tasks" into two options now that we have more room ("Edit Parent Tasks", "Edit Subtasks").
This also renames "Blocking" tasks to "Subtasks", and "Blocked" tasks to "Parent" tasks. My goals here are:
- Make the relationship direction more clear: it's more clear which way is up with "parent" and "subtask" at a glance than with "blocking" and "blocked" or "dependent" and "dependency".
- Align language with "Create Subtask".
- To some small degree, use more flexible/general-purpose language, although I haven't seen any real confusion here.
Fixes T6815. I think I narrowed this down to two issues:
- Just throwing a bare exeception (we now return a dialog explicitly).
- Not killing open transactions when the cyclec check fails (we now kill them).
Test Plan:
- Edited parent tasks.
- Edited subtasks.
- Tried to introduce graph cycles, got a nice error dialog.
{F1697087}
{F1697088}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6815, T11179
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16166
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:
Ref T11035. This only fixes half of the issue: comment editing has been fixed, but normal transactions which edit things like descriptions haven't yet.
The normal edits aren't fixed because the "oldValues" are populated too late. The code should start working once they get populated sooner, but I don't want to jump the gun on that since it'll probably have some spooky effects. I have some other transaction changes coming down the pipe which should provide a better context for testing "oldValue" population order.
Test Plan:
- Mentioned `@dog` in a comment.
- Removed `@dog` as a subscriber.
- Edited the comment, adding some unrelated text at the end (e.g., fixing a typo).
- Before change: `@dog` re-added as subscriber.
- After change: no re-add.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16108
Summary:
Ref T7643.
- When a transaction edits a text block, add a link to the changes (for HTML mail).
- Also, inline the changes in the mail (for HTML mail).
- Do nothing for text mail since I don't think we really have room? And I don't know how we can make the diff look any good.
Test Plan:
Edited a task description, generated mail, examined mail.
- It contained a link leading to a prose diff.
- It had a more-or-less reasonable inline text diff.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7643
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16063
Summary:
Fixes T11088. When a task is removed from a project, we don't normally delete its column positions. If you accidentally remove a project and then restore the project, it's nice for the task to stay where you put it.
However, we do need to remove its positions in proxy columns to avoid the issue in T11088.
Test Plan:
- Added a failing unit test, made it pass.
- Added a task to "X > Milestone 1", loaded workboard, used "Edit Projects" to move it to "X" instead, loaded workboard.
- Before, it stayed in the "Milestone 1" column.
- After, it moves to the "Backlog" column.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11088
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16052
Summary: Converts to table so text wraps on long strings well, button always stays top right, better spacing underneath.
Test Plan: Mail, Gmail, mobile
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15955
Summary:
Ref T10694. If this feels good, I'd plan to eventually add something similar to other applications ("View Task", etc).
Not sure if we should keep the object link later in the mail body or not. I left it for now.
Test Plan: {F1307256, size=full}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15884
Summary:
Ref T10939. Fixes T8887. This enables and implements the "review" and "blocking review" options for packages.
This is a bit copy-pastey from `DifferentialReviewersHeraldAction`, which doesn't feel awesome. I think the right fix is Glorious Infrasturcture, though -- I filed T10967 to track that.
Test Plan:
- Set package autoreveiw to "Review".
- Updated, got a reveiwer.
- Set autoreview to "blocking".
- Updated, got a blocking reviewer.
{F1311720}
{F1311721}
{F1311722}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8887, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15916
Summary:
Ref T10939. Ref T8887. This moves toward letting packages automatically become reviewers or blocking reviewers of owned code.
This change adds an "Auto Review" option to packages. Because adding reviewers/blocking reviewers is a little tricky, it doesn't actually have these options yet -- just a "subscribe" option. I'll do the reviewer work in the next update.
Test Plan:
Created a revision in a package with "Auto Review: Subscribe to Changes". The package got subscribed.
{F1311677}
{F1311678}
{F1311679}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8887, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15915
Summary:
Ref T10262. Files have an internal secret key which is partially used to control access to them, and determines part of the URL you need to access them. Scramble (regenerate) the secret when:
- the view policy for the file itself changes (and the new policy is not "public" or "all users"); or
- the view policy or space for an object the file is attached to changes (and the file policy is not "public" or "all users").
This basically means that when you change the visibility of a task, any old URLs for attached files stop working and new ones are implicitly generated.
Test Plan:
- Attached a file to a task, used `SELECT * FROM file WHERE id = ...` to inspect the secret.
- Set view policy to public, same secret.
- Set view policy to me, new secret.
- Changed task view policy, new secret.
- Changed task space, new secret.
- Changed task title, same old secret.
- Added and ran unit tests which cover this behavior.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10262
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15641
Summary: Cleans up EditEngine, adds new layout to EditEngine and descendents
Test Plan: Test creating a new form, reordering, marking and unmarking defaults. View new forms.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15531
Summary:
Ref T10537. For Nuance, I want to introduce new sources (like "GitHub" or "GitHub via Nuance" or something) but this needs to modularize eventually.
Split ContentSource apart so applications can add new content sources.
Test Plan:
This change has huge surface area, so I'll hold it until post-release. I think it's fairly safe (and if it does break anything, the breaks should be fatals, not anything subtle or difficult to fix), there's just no reason not to hold it for a few hours.
- Viewed new module page.
- Grepped for all removed functions/constants.
- Viewed some transactions.
- Hovered over timestamps to get content source details.
- Added a comment via Conduit.
- Added a comment via web.
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade --namespace XXXXX --no-quickstart -f` to re-run all historic migrations.
- Generated some objects with `bin/lipsum`.
- Ran a bulk job on some tasks.
- Ran unit tests.
{F1190182}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10537
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15521
Summary:
Ref T10349. These got sort of half-weirded-up before I separated subscriptions and watching fully. New rules are:
- You can watch whatever you want.
- Watching a parent watches everything inside it.
- If you're watching "Stonework" and go to "Stonework > Masonry", you'll see a "Watching Ancestor" hint to let you know you're already watching a parent or ancestor.
Test Plan:
- Watched and unwatched "Stonework".
- Watched and unwatched "Stonework > Iteration IV".
- While watching "Stonework", visited "Iteration IV" and saw "Watching Ancestor" hint.
- Created a task tagged "Stonework > Iteration IV". Got notified about it because I watch "Stonework".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10349
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15280
Summary:
Ref T10010. When you try to add "Sprint 35" to a task, remove "Sprint 34", etc. Briefly:
- A task can't be in Sprint 3 and Sprint 4.
- A task can't be in "A" and "A > B" (but "A > B" and "A > C" are fine).
- When a user makes an edit which would violate one of these rules, preserve the last tag in each group of conflicts.
Test Plan:
- Added fairly comprehensive tests.
- Added a bunch of different tags to things, saw them properly exclude conflicting tags.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15167
Summary:
Ref T9979. There are currently some hacks around Conpherence indexing: it does not really use the fulltext index, but its own specialized index. However, it's kind of hacked up so it can get reindexed by the normal indexing pipeline.
Lift it up into IndexEngine, instead of FulltextEngine. Specifically, the new stuff is going to look like this:
- IndexEngine: Rebuild all indexes.
- ConpherenceIndexExtension: Rebuild thread indexes.
- ProjectMemberIndexExtension: Rebuild project membership views.
- NgramIndexExtension: Rebuild ngram indexes.
- FulltextIndexExtension / FulltextEngine: Rebuild fulltext indexes, a special type of index.
- FulltextCommentExtension: Rebuild comment fulltext indexes.
- FulltextProjectExtension: Rebuild project fulltext indexes.
- etc.
Most of this is at least sort-of-in-place as of this diff, although some of the part in the middle is still pretty rough.
Test Plan:
- Made a unique comment in a Conpherence thread.
- Used `bin/search index --force` to rebuild the index.
- Searched for the comment.
- Found the thread.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14841
Summary:
Ref T9890. Ref T9979. Several adjacent goals:
- The `SearchEngine` vs `ApplicationSearchEngine` thing is really confusing. There are also a bunch of confusing class names and class relationships within the fulltext indexing. I want to rename these classes to be more standard (`IndexEngine`, `IndexEngineExtension`, etc). Rename `SearchIndexer` to `IndexEngine`. A future change will rename `SearchEngine`.
- Add the index locks described in T9890.
- Structure things a little more normally so future diffs can do the "EngineExtension" thing more cleanly.
Test Plan:
Indexing:
- Renamed a task to have a unique word in the title.
- Ran `bin/search index Txxx`.
- Searched for unique word.
- Found task.
Locking:
- Added a `sleep(10)` after the `lock()` call.
- Ran `bin/search index Txxx` in two windows.
- Saw first one lock, sleep 10 seconds, index.
- Saw second one give up temporarily after failing to grab the lock.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9890, T9979
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14834
Summary: Ref T10004. This lost a couple of fields when I rearranged how descriptions work. Restore them.
Test Plan:
- Viewed "Using HTTP Parameters".
- Everything had nice descriptions.
- No more weird phantom/misleading 'comment' transaction in UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14822
Summary:
Ref T10004. This restores "alice created this task." transactions, but in a generic way so we don't have to special case one of the other edits with an old `null` value.
In most cases, creating an object now shows only an "alice created this thing." transaction, unless nonempty defaults (usually, policy or spaces) were adjusted.
Test Plan: Created pastes, tasks, blogs, packages, and forms. Saw a single "alice created this thing." transaction.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14820
Summary:
Ref T10004. Fixes T9527. Currently, we render two kinds of bad policy/space transactions during object creation.
First, we render a transaction showing a change from the default policy/space to the selected policy/space:
> alice shifted this object from space S1 Default to space S2 Secret.
This is a //good transaction// (it's showing that the default was changed, which could be important for policy stuff!) but it's confusing because it makes it sound like the object briefly existed in space S1, when it did not.
Instead, render this:
> alice created this object in space S2 Secret.
This retains the value (show that the object was created in an unusual space) without the confusion.
Second, when you create a "New Bug Report", we render a transaction like this:
> alice changed the visibility of this task from "All Users" to "Community".
This is distracting and not useful, becasue it's a locked default of the form. This was essentially fixed by D14810. The new behavior is to show this, //only// if the value was changed from the form value:
> alice created this object with visibility "Administrators".
This should reduce confusion, reduce fluff in the default cases, and do a better job of calling out important changes (basically, unusual spaces/policies).
Test Plan:
- Created an edit form with a default space and policies.
- Used that form to create task with:
- same values as form;
- different values from form.
When I changed the form value, I got transactions. When I left it the same, I didn't.
The transactions rendered in the non-confusing "created with ..." variant.
Editing the values created normal transactions with "changed policy from X to Y".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9527, T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14811
Summary:
Fixes T7661. Ref T9527.
When you create a task, especially with an EditEngine form, you currently get more noise than is useful. For example:
> alice created this task.
> alice changed the edit policy from "All Users" to "Community (Project)".
> alice added projects: Feature Request, Differential.
> alice added a subscriber: alice.
Transaction (1) is a little useful, since it saves us from a weird empty state and shows the object creation time.
Transaction (2) is totally useless (and even misleading) because that's the default policy for the form.
Transaction (3) isn't //completely// useless but isn't very interesting, and probably not worth the real-estate.
Transaction (4) is totally useless.
(These transactions are uniquely useless when creating objects -- when editing them later, they're fine.)
This adds two new rules to hide transactions:
- Hide transactions from object creation if the old value is empty (e.g., set title, set projects, set subscribers).
- Hide transactions from object creation if the old value is the same as the form default value (e.g., set policy to default, set priorities to default, set status to default).
NOTE: These rules also hide the "created this object" transaction, since it's really one of those transaction types in all cases. I want to keep that around in the long term, but just have it be a separate `TYPE_CREATE` action -- currently, it is this weird, inconsistent action where we pick some required field (like title) and special-case the rendering if the old value is `null`. So fixing that is a bit more involved. For now, I'm just dropping these transactions completely, but intend to restore them later.
Test Plan:
- Created objects.
- Usually saw no extra create transactions.
- Saw extra create transactions when making an important change away from form defaults (e.g., overriding form policy).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7661, T9527
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14810
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 T9908. These meta-edit-engines are used to generate the main editengine UIs, but they're also editable.
Fix an exception when trying to edit the meta editengine.
Test Plan: Edited editengineconfiguration editengine.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14783
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. Puts reordering UI in place:
- For create forms, this just lets you pick a UI display order other than alphabetical. Seems nice to have.
- For edit forms, this lets you create a hierarchy of advanced-to-basic forms and give them different visibility policies, if you want.
Test Plan:
{F1017842}
- Verified that "Edit Thing" now takes me to the highest-ranked edit form.
- Verified that create menu and quick create menu reflect application order.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14704
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. This attempts to move us forward on answering this question:
> Which form gets used when a user clicks "Edit Task"?
One answer is "the same form that was used to create the task". There are several problems with that:
- The form might not exist anymore.
- The user might not have permission to see it.
- Some of the fields might be hidden, essentially preventing them from being edited.
- We have to store the value somewhere and old tasks won't have a value.
- Any instructions on the form probably don't apply to edits.
One answer is "force the default, full form". That's not as problematic, but it means we have no ability to create limited access users who see fewer fields.
The answer in this diff is:
- Forms can be marked as "edit forms".
- We take the user to the first edit form they have permission to see, from a master list.
This allows you to create several forms like:
- Advanced Edit Form (say, all fields -- visible to administrators).
- Basic Edit Form (say, no policies -- visible to trusted users).
- Noob Edit Form (say, no policies, priorities, or status -- visible to everyone).
Then you can give everyone access to "noob", some people access to "basic", and a few people access to "advanced".
This might only be part of the answer. In particular, you can still //use// any edit form you can see, so we could do these things in the future:
- Give you an option to switch to a different form if you want.
- Save the form the task was created with, and use that form by default.
If we do pursue those, we can fall back to this behavior if there's a problem with them (e.g., original form doesn't exist or wasn't recorded).
There's also no "reorder" UI yet, that'll be coming in the next diff.
I'm also going to try to probably make the "create" and "edit" stuff a little more consistent / less weird in a bit.
Test Plan: Marked various forms as edit forms or not edit forms, made edits, hit permissions errors, etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14702
Summary:
Ref T9908. Simplify some of the policies here:
- If you can edit an application (currently, always "Administrators"), you can view and edit all of its forms.
- You must be able to edit an application to create new forms.
- Improve some error messages.
- Get about halfway through letting users reorder forms in the "Create" menu if they want to sort by something weird since it'll need schema changes and I can do them all in one go here.
Test Plan:
- Tried to create and edit forms as an unprivileged user.
- Created and edited forms as an administrator.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14700
Summary:
Ref T9132. Open to discussion here since it's mostly product stuff, but here's my gut on this:
- Change Maniphest behavior to stop assigning tasks if they're unassigned when closed. I think this behavior often doesn't make much sense. We'll probably separately track "who closed this" in T4434 eventually.
- Only add the actor as a subscriber if they comment, like in other applications. Previously, we added them as a subscriber for other types of changes (like priority and status changes). This is more consistent, but open to retaining the old behavior or some compromise between the two.
- Retain the "when changing owner, subscribe the old owner" behavior.
Test Plan:
- Added a comment, got CC'd.
- Changed owners, saw old owner get CC'd.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14670
Summary: Ref T9132. This still has a lot of rough edges but the basics seem to work OK.
Test Plan: {F1012627}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14653
Summary:
Ref T9132.
Let configurations be enabled/disabled. This doesn't do much right now.
Let configurations be marked as default entries in the application "Create" menu. This makes them show up in the application in a dropdown, so you can replace the default form and/or provide several forms.
In Maniphest, we'll do this to provide a menu something like this:
- New Bug Report
- New Feature Request
- ADVANCED TASK CREATION!!11~ (only available for Community members)
Test Plan: {F1005679}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14584
Summary: Ref T9851. See T9860. This adds a missing capability to custom HeraldActions, to pave the way for removing the obsolete/undesirable WILLEDITTASK and DIDEDITTASK events.
Test Plan: See T9860 for a replacement action.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9851
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14575
Summary:
Fixes T9850. The `getComment()` test should be a `hasComment()` test, in order to discard empty comments.
Also backport a couple of future fixes which can get you into trouble if you reconfigure forms in awkward ways.
Test Plan: Created a new paste without a comment.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9850
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14571
Summary:
Ref T9132. Allows fields to be locked (shown, but not modifiable) and hidden (not shown).
In both cases, default values are still respected.
This lets you do things like create a form that generates objects with specific projects, policies, etc.
Test Plan:
- Set defaults.
- Locked and hid a bunch of fields.
- Created new objects using the resulting form.
{F975801}
{F975802}
{F975803}
{F975804}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14509
Summary: Ref T9132. Allow form configurations to include defaults (like default projects, spaces, policies, etc).
Test Plan:
Defaulted "Language" to "Rainbow", plus other adjustments:
{F975746}
{F975747}
{F975748}
{F975749}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14508
