Summary:
Ref T11085. To recreate the issue:
- From the web UI, click "Edit Revision".
- Write something like this as your "Summary" (i.e., put another field marker, like "Test Plan:", into the summary):
> This is a test of the
> Test Plan: field to see
> if it works.
- Save changes.
Later, when the summary is amended into a commit message, the parser will see two "Test Plan:" fields and fail to parse the message.
Instead, prevent users from making this edit.
Test Plan: {F1917640}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11085
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16846
Summary:
Ref T11853. My CSS change for the more enormous policy dialog was a little too broad, and affected the "You shall not pass!" dialog too.
Narrow the scope of the CSS rules.
Also add a missing "." that I caught.
Test Plan:
- Looked at policy exception dialogs.
- Looked at policy explanation dialogs.
- Looked at the end of that sentence.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11853
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16841
Summary:
Fixes T11853. To set this up:
- Create "Project A".
- Join "Project A".
- Create a subproject, "Project A Subproject 1".
- This causes Project A to become a parent project.
- This moves you to be a member of "Project A Subproject 1" instead of "Project A" directly.
- Create another subproject, "Project A Subproject 2".
- Do not join this subproject.
- Set the second subproject's policy to "Visible To: Members of Project A".
- Try to edit the second subproject.
Before this change, this fails:
- When querying projects, we sometime try to skip loading the viewer's membership in ancestor projects as a small optimization.
- Via `PhabricatorExtendedPolicyInterface`, we may then return the parent project to the policy filter for extended checks.
- The PolicyFilter has an optimization: if we're checking an object, and we already have that object, we can just use the object we already have. This is common and useful.
- However, in this case it causes us to reuse an incomplete object (an object without proper membership information). We fail a policy check which we should pass.
Instead, don't skip loading the viewer's membership in ancestor projects.
Test Plan:
- Did all that stuff above.
- Could edit the subproject.
- Ran `arc unit --everything`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11853
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16840
Summary: Fixes T11839. Both are missing a parameter and one is a copy/paste slop.
Test Plan:
{F1913812}
{F1913813}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11839
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16837
Summary:
Ref T8510. When users type "platypus" into a typeahead, they want "Platypus Playground" to be a higher-ranked match than "AAA Platypus", even though the latter is alphabetically first.
Specifically, the rule is: results which match the query as a prefix of the result text should rank above results which do not.
I believe we now always get this right on the client side. However, WMF has at least one case (described in T8510) where we do not get it right on the server side, and thus the user sees the wrong result.
The remaining issue is that if "platypus" matches more than 100 results, the result "Platypus Playground" may not appear in the result set at all, beacuse there are 100 copies of "AAA Platypus 1", "AAA Platypus 2", etc., first. So even though the client will apply the correct sort, it doesn't have the result the user wants and can't show it to them.
To fix this, split the server-side query into two phases:
- In the first phase, the "prefix" phase, we find results that **start with** "platypus".
- In the second phase, the "content" phase, we find results that contain "platypus" anywhere.
We skip the "prefix" phase if the user has not typed a query (for example, in the browse view).
Test Plan:
This is a lot of stuff, but the new ranking here puts projects which start with "w" at the top of the list. Lower down the list, you can see some projects which contain "w" but do not appear at the top (like "Serious Work").
{F1913931}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8510
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16838
Summary:
fixes T11792.
There's no good reason any more to have this option, so just drop it.
Test Plan: Load a file, toggle remaining "blame" button. Load search results page and an image too, which are serviced by the same controller.
Reviewers: chad, #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T11792
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16833
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 T11836. See some prior discussion in T8376#120613.
The policy hint in headers in the UI is not exhaustive, and can not reasonably be exhaustive. For example, on a revision, it may say "All Users", but really mean "All users who can see the space this object is in and the repository it belongs to, plus the revision author and reviewers".
These rules are explained if you click (and, often, in the documentation), but "All Users" is still at least somewhat misleading.
I don't think there's any perfect solution here that balances the needs of both new and experienced users perfectly, but this change tries to do a bit better about avoiding cases where we say something very open (like "All Users") when the real policy is not very open.
Specifically, I've made these changes to the header:
- Spaces are now listed in the tag, so it will say `(S3 > All Users)` instead of `(All Users)`. They're already listed in the header, this just makes it more explicit that Spaces are a policy container and part of the view policy.
- Extended policy objects are now listed in the tag, so it will say `(S3 > rARC > All Users)` for a revision in the Arcanist repository which is also in Space 3.
- Objects can now provide a "Policy Codex", which is an object that represents a rulebook of more sophisticated policy descriptions. This codex can replace the tag with something else.
- Imported calendar events now say "Uses Import Policy" instead of, e.g., "All Users".
I've made these changes to the policy dialog:
- Split it into more visually separate sections.
- Added an explicit section for extended policies ("You must also have access to these other objects: ...").
- Broken the object policy rules into a "Special Rules" section (for rules like "you can only see a revision if you can see the repository it is part of") and an "Object Policy" section (for the actual object policy).
- Tried to make it a little more readable?
- The new policy dialogs are great to curl up with in front of a fire with a nice cup of cocoa.
I've made these changes to infrastructure:
- Implementing `PhabricatorPolicyInterface` no longer requires you to implement `describeAutomaticCapability()`.
- Instead, implement `PhabricatorPolicyCodexInterface` and return a `PhabricatorPolicyCodex` object.
- This "codex" is a policy rulebook which can set all the policy icons, labels, colors, rules, etc., to properly explain complex policies.
- Broadly, the old method was usually either not useful (most objects have no special rules) or not powerful enough (objects with special rules often need to do more in order to explain them).
Test Plan:
{F1912860}
{F1912861}
{F1912862}
{F1912863}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T11836
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16830
Summary: Redesign the action comment box for better use in two column, mobile, nuance.
Test Plan: Test in mobile / desktop / tablet, adding and removing actions. Actionless comment boxes, etc.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: cspeckmim, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16811
Summary: Fixes T11834. Actually adding the step wasn't in the `if (...)` block. Also, typo fix.
Test Plan: Saw only one "Explore" on `/guides/`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11834
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16828
Summary: Ref T5267. I missed these in the variable types conversion.
Test Plan: `arc unit --everything`
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5267
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16824
Summary:
Ref T5267. When extrating data from `pht()` calls, also extract the argument types and export them into the map so they can be used by consumers.
We recognize plurals (`phutil_count()`, `new PhutilNumber`) and genders (`phutil_person()`). We'll need to annotate the codebase for those, since they're currently runtime-only.
Test Plan:
Rebuilt extraction maps, got data like this (note "number" type annotation).
```
"Scaling pool \"%s\" up to %s daemon(s).": {
"uses": [
{
"file": "/daemon/PhutilDaemonOverseer.php",
"line": 378
}
],
"types": [
null,
"number"
]
},
```
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5267
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16823
Summary:
Ref T7643. When you do something like this:
- Edit a task description.
- Click "Show Details" on the resulting transaction.
- Get a prose diff dialog showing the change.
...now add some "Old" and "New" tabs. These are useful for:
- reverting to the old text by copy/pasting;
- reading just the new/old text if the diff is noisy;
- sometimes just nice to have?
(This looks a little rough but I didn't want to put a negative margin on tab groups inside dialogs? Not sure what the best fix here is.)
Test Plan: {F1909390}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7643
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16817
Summary:
Ref T11809. I missed this when adding a "Busy" status.
Also the other dot is orange? Just make them all orange for consistency.
Test Plan: Viewed `@username` of busy users (orange), away users (red).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16819
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 T11801. These are pretty fiddly because users expect to see the end time for timed events ("10 AM - 11 AM" is ONE hour long) but not for all-day events ("Nov 2 - Nov 3" is TWO days long!)
We also want to store the thing the user actually entered so we don't lose data if they un-all-day the event later.
This may take a little more fiddling since it feels a little shaky, but I couldn't break this version immediately.
Test Plan: Imported a French holiday, got proper display in the UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11801
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16815
Summary:
Ref T11801. This makes testing/debugging a little easier.
Also fix some inconsistencies with `importAuthorPHID` handling -- it should be the import's author PHID in all cases, so we update imported events properly.
Test Plan: Imported a French holiday with `bin/calendar reload ...`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11801
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16814
Summary:
Ref T5267. Although translations with very few strings are already put into a "Limited Translations" group, this isn't necessarily clear and was empirically confusing to at least one user, who was surprised that selecting "Spanish" had no UI effect.
Instead, hide limited and test translations entirely unless the install is in developer mode.
Test Plan: In a non-developer-mode install, viewed translations menu. No longer saw translations with very few strings.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5267
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16807
Summary:
Fixes T4788. This change:
- converts the "Task Graph" into a "Related Objects" tabgroup.
- makes "Task Graph" the first tab in the group.
- moves "Mocks" to become a tab.
- adds a new "Mentions" tab, which shows inbound and outbound mentions.
Primary goal of "mocks" is to give us room for a pinboard/thumbnail view after the next Pholio iteration. Might make sense to make it the default tab (if present) at that point, too, since mocks are probably more important than related tasks when they're present.
Primary goal of "mentions" is to provide a bit of general support for various freeform relationships between tasks: if you want to treat tasks as "siblings" or "related" or "following" or whatever, you can at least find them all in one place. I don't plan to formalize any of these weird one-off relationships in the upstream, although it's vaguely possible that some far-future update might just let you define arbitrary custom relationships and then you can do whatever you want.
Test Plan: {F1906974}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4788
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16806
Summary: Ref T11801. When a file is larger than 512KB, queue it for background import instead of trying to do it in the foreground, sinc we risk hitting `max_execution_time`.
Test Plan: {F1906943}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11801
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16805
Summary:
Ref T11801. This issue led to the stack trace in T11801#199042.
It wasn't obvious that this was wrong because the recover-on-duplicate-key code made it work correctly.
Test Plan: Imported an event with external attendees with no warnings in the log.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11801
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16804
Summary: Ref T11816. We're running this code on empty events which haven't been initialized and don't have a source attached -- just use a more explanatory check which doesn't need anything attached.
Test Plan: Edited default Calendar policies.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11816
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16803
Summary:
Ref T11816.
- Now that we can do something meaningful with them, bring back the yellow dots for "busy".
- Default to "busy" when attending events (we could make this "busy" for short events and "away" for long events or something).
- Let users pick how to display their attending status on the event page.
- Also show which event the user is attending since I had to mess with the cache code anyway. We can get rid of this again if it doesn't feel good.
Test Plan:
{F1904179}
{F1904180}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11816
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16802
Summary: Ref T11816. Depends on D16800. Show warnings generated by ICS import in the UI.
Test Plan: {F1904122}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11816
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16801
Summary:
When Phortune merchant accounts are created via mechanisms other than the web UI (for example, by Phacility unit tests) this validation check may fail.
Transactions are validated even if no transactions of the given type are being applied, to allow the editor to raise errors like "Name is required!".
If there's no TYPE_INVOICEEMAIL transaction, we'll get called with empty `$xactions` and fail on `strlen($new_email)` because the variable is never defined.
As a secondary issue, if contactInfo, invoiceEmail or invoiceFooter are not provided the record will fail to insert (none of these are nullable).
Test Plan: Ran Phacility unit tests, got a clean result for new instance creation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16798
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
Summary:
Ref T11809.
- Allow users to remove the "Until" date from recurring events.
- When removing "Until", show a sensible string ("...set this event to repeat forever.")
- When users go through the "Make Recurring" workflow, don't require them to explicitly select "Recurring: Recurring" from the dropdown. This intent is clear from clicking "Make Recurring".
- When editing "All Future Events", don't literally apply date changes to them, since that doesn't make sense. We update the template, then reschedule any events which haven't been edited already. I think this is what users probably mean if they make this edit.
- When creating an event with a non-default icon, don't show "alice changed the icon from Default to Party.".
- Hide the "recurring mode" transaction, which had no string ("alice edited this Event.") and was redundant anyway.
- Also, add a little piece of developer text to make hunting these things down easier.
Test Plan: Edited various events, parents, children, made events recur, set until, unset until, viewed transactions, rescheduled parents, rescheduled children.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16796
Summary:
Ref T11809. Roughly documents most of the tricky/unintuitive stuff.
Also fixes a bug with "Make Recurring" with no "Until" date.
Test Plan: Read document.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16792
Summary:
Ref T11809. Currently, commenting on a recurring event hits the same "one or all?" dialog that other edits do.
For comments and edits submitted via the comment widget, we can safely assume that you mean "just this one", since it doesn't really make sense to try to bulk-edit an event from that UI.
Test Plan: Commented on a recurring event parent and an event in the series.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16795
Summary: Ref T11809. This makes the mail more consistent with Differential and Maniphest, which only include additional details in the first mail in the thread.
Test Plan:
- Created an event with a description.
- First mail included it.
- Followups did not.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16794
Summary:
Ref T11809. We show a red dot next to a username to indicate that the user is away (on vacation, in a meeting, etc).
It's not very obvious what this means unless you know that's what it is: when you click the username or view a hovercard, there's no visual hint about what the red dot means. It does say "Away", but there is a lot of information and it doesn't visually connect the two.
Connect the two visually by putting a red dot next to the "Away" bit, too.
Test Plan:
Here's my version of it, this feels OK to me but could maybe be more designed:
{F1893916}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16791
Summary:
Ref T11809. As we move toward unprototyping, this panel is probably more relevant/dynamic/interesting more often than the badges panel, I think?
Particularly, I want to make the red dots a little easier to understand, and I think putting this above the fold will help aid discovery (red dot -> click -> see red dot -> see "away until ..." -> see calendar -> "oh they're at a meeting"?).
This is entirely a product/subjective thing so I'm fine with not doing it or using a different order.
I think there's maybe even an argument for putting this above "Projects", but "Projects" feels more core to me, at least for now.
Test Plan: Viewed a user profile, saw "Calendar" above "Badges".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16790
Summary: Ref T11808. This variable is wrong, and would sometimes cause events to set themsevles as their own parents. They would then fail to load, and disrupt cursor paging.
Test Plan:
- Reproduced T11808 locally by reloading test data 2+ times, creating events with themselves as their own parents.
- Appplied fix.
- Nuked data, reloaded, no more self-parents.
- Test datafile: {F1894017}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11808
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16793
Summary: Ref T11809. These have been replaced with more flexible storage that accommodates a wider range of behaviors, including those in the ICS format and RRULEs.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration.
- Viewed, created, edited events.
- Grepped for all removed names/symbols.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16789
Summary:
Ref T11809. This came out of Facebook many years ago for computing the number of business days that revisions had been stale.
We removed the little staleness marker a few months ago and haven't seen complaints about it.
If we did holidays now it would make sense to integrate them more directly with Calendar as real events, but I have no plans to pursue this anytime soon. It's easy enough to add the federal holidays manually (~5 minutes of work per year?) if you want them, and they're commentable/editable and you can add local holidays if you're not in the US.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade -f`.
- Grepped for `CalendarHoliday`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11809
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16788
Summary:
Fixes T11808. I couldn't reproduce the issue there locally so I'm just cheating a little bit until a better reproduction case shows up.
We don't need to do a full load here anyway, and testing for any row is more efficient.
Test Plan: Poked around imports without issues, but couldn't reproduce this problem locally.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11808
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16787
Summary:
Fixes T11805. Depends on D16785. This generally tries to smooth out transactions:
- All-day stuff now says "Nov 3" instead of "Nov 3 12:00:00 AM".
- Fewer weird bugs / extra transactions.
- No more silly extra "yeah, you definitely set that event time" transaction on create.
Test Plan: Edited events; changed from all-day to not-all-day and back again, viewed transaction log.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11805
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16786
Summary: Ref T7931. This is still quite rough, but should technically send vaguely-useful email as part of the standard trigger infrastructure.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/phd start`, created an event shortly, saw reminder email send in `bin/mail list-outbound`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7931
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16784
Summary:
Ref T7931. I'm going to do this separate from existing infrastructure because:
- events start at different times for different users;
- I like the idea of being able to batch stuff (send one email about several upcoming events);
- triggering on ghost/recurring events is a real complicated mess.
This puts a skeleton in place that finds all the events we need to notify about and writes some silly example bodies to stdout, marking that we notified users so they don't get notified again.
Test Plan:
Ran `bin/calendar notify`, got a "great" notification in the command output.
{F1891625}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7931
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16783
Summary:
Fixes T11804. This probably isn't perfect but seems to work fairly reasonably and not be as much of a weird nonsense mess like the old behavior was.
When a user edits a recurring event, we ask them what they're trying to do. Then we more or less do that.
Test Plan:
- Edited an event in the middle of a series.
- Edited the first event in a series.
- Edited "just this" and "all future" events in various places in a series.
- Edited normal events.
- Cancelled various events.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11804
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16782
Summary:
Ref T11804. This one is messy because we have to fork the //next// event, possibly creating it first.
Then we can edit the parent normally.
Test Plan: Cancelled the first event in a series, only that one cancelled.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11804
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16781
Summary:
When you edit "X and all future events", X becomes the new parent of an event series.
Currently, it loses its relationship to its original parent. Instead, retain that relationship -- it's separate from the normal "parent", but we can use it to make the UI more clear or tweak behaviors later.
This mostly just keeps us from losing/destroying data that we might need/want later.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Cancelled "X and all future events", saw sensible-appearing beahvior in the database for "seriesParentPHID".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16780
Summary: Ref T11804. The field now reads the correct value directly and we don't need this wrapper.
Test Plan: Poked around Calendar without explosions.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11804
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16779
Summary:
Ref T11804. This puts us on a path toward some kind of reasonable behavior here.
Currently, cancelling recurring events makes approximately zero sense ever in any situation.
Instead, give users the choice to cancel just the instance, or all future events. This is similar to Calendar.app. (Google Calendar has a third option, "All Events", which I may implement).
When the user picks something, basically do that.
The particulars of "do that" are messy. We have to split the series into two different series, stop the first series early, then edit the second series. Then we need to update any concrete events that are now part of the second series.
This code will get less junk in the next couple of diffs (I hope?) since I need to make it apply to edits, too, but this was a little easier to get started with.
Test Plan:
Cancelled an instance of an event; cancelled "All future events".
Both of them more or less worked in a reasonble way.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11804
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16778
Summary:
In ICS, an event on "Nov 1" starts on "2016-11-01" and ends on "2016-11-02".
This is convenient for computers, but this isn't what users expect to enter in date controls. They expect to enter "nov 1" to "Nov 1" for a one-day, all-day event. This is consistent with other applications.
Store the value the user entered, but treat it as the first second of the next day when actually using it if the event is an all day event.
Test Plan:
Mucked around with multi-day all-day events, recurring all-day events, imports, etc. Couldn't catch any weird/unintuitive stuff anymore offhand.
(Previously, entering "Nov 1" to "Nov 2" created a one-day event, which was unclear.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16777
Summary:
This feels a little cleaner:
- Clean up transaction log a bit.
- Use a checkbox instead of a two-option dropdown.
This is a little messy because the browser doesn't send anything if the user submits a form with an un-clicked checkbox.
We now send a dummy value ("Hey, there's definitely a checkbox in this form!") so the server can figure out what to do.
Test Plan:
- Edited all-dayness of an event.
- Viewed transaction log.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16776
Summary:
Ref T11326. If you scheudle a monthly event on the 31st, the default behavior of RRULE means that it only occurs in months with 31 days.
This is actually how Google Calendar and Calendar.app both work: if you schedule a monthly event on the 31st, you get about six events per year.
This seems real confusing and bad to me?
Instead, if the user schedules a monthly event on the 29th, 30th or 31st, pretend they scheduled it on the "last day of the month" or "second-to-last day of the month" or similar, so they always get 12 events per year.
This could be slightly confusing too, but seems way less weird than not getting an event every month.
Test Plan: Scheduled events on the 31st of October, saw them occur in November too after the patch.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11326
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16775
Summary:
Ref T11326. Currently, the "Create Event" form is pretty wordy. One particular culprit is the "recurring" controls, which are (presumably) rarely used and visually complex.
- Reflow the default form to hopefully feel a little better.
- Move recurrence stuff to a separate workflow.
Test Plan:
{F1891355}
{F1891356}
{F1891357}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11326
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16774
