Summary: Ref T13099. Move most of the "Update" logic to modular transactions
Test Plan: Created and updated revisions. Flushed the task queue. Grepped for `TYPE_UPDATE`. Reviewed update transactions in the timeline and feed.
Maniphest Tasks: T13099
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19175
Summary:
Depends on D19065. Ref T13054. Instead of just updating `containerPHID` and hoping for the best, queue a proper BuildWorker to process a "your container has changed, update it" message.
We also need to remove a (superfluous) `withContainerPHIDs()` when loading active diffs for a revision.
Test Plan:
- Without daemons, created a revision and saw builds stick in "preparing" with no container PHID, but also stay in draft mode.
- With daemons, saw builds actually build and get the right container PHID.
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19066
Summary:
Depends on D19021. Ref T13053. When you "Subscribe", or make some other types of edits, we don't necessarily have reviewer data, but may now need it to do the new recipient list logic.
I don't have a totally clean way to deal with this in the general case in mind, but just load it for now so that things don't fatal.
Test Plan: Subscribed to a revision with the "Subscribe" action.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19022
Summary:
Depends on D19019. Ref T13053. Fixes T12689. See PHI178.
Currently, if `@alice` resigns from a revision but `#alice-fan-club` is still a subscriber or reviewer, she'll continue to get mail. This is undesirable.
When users are associated with an object but have explicitly disengaged in an individal role (currently, only resign in audit/differential) mark them "unexpandable", so that they can no longer be included through implicit membership in a group (a project or package).
`@alice` can still get mail if she's a explicit recipient: as an author, owner, or if she adds herself back as a subscriber.
Test Plan:
- Added `@ducker` and `#users-named-ducker` as reviewers. Ducker got mail.
- Resigned as ducker, stopped getting future mail.
- Subscribed explicitly, got mail again.
- (Plus some `var_dump()` sanity checking in the internals.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053, T12689
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19021
Summary:
Depends on D19009. Ref T13053. For "Must Encrypt" mail, we must currently strip the "Thread-Topic" header because it sometimes contains sensitive information about the object.
I don't actually know if this header is useful or anyting uses it. My understanding is that it's an Outlook/Exchange thing, but we also implement "Thread-Index" which I think is what Outlook/Exchange actually look at. This header may have done something before we implemented "Thread-Index", or maybe never done anything. Or maybe older versions of Excel/Outlook did something with it and newer versions don't, or do less. So it's possible that an even better fix here would be to simply remove this, but I wasn't able to convince myself of that after Googling for 10 minutes and I don't think it's worth hours of installing Exchange/Outlook to figure out. Instead, I'm just trying to simplify our handling of this header for now, and maybe some day we'll learn more about Exchange/Outlook and can remove it.
In a number of cases we already use the object monogram or PHID as a "Thread-Topic" without users ever complaining, so I think that if this header is useful it probably isn't shown to users, or isn't shown very often (e.g., only in a specific "conversation" sub-view?). Just use the object PHID (which should be unique and stable) as a thread-topic, everywhere, automatically.
Then allow this header through for "Must Encrypt" mail.
Test Plan: Processed some local mail, saw object PHIDs for "Thread-Topic" headers.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19012
Summary:
Ref T13057. This makes "reverts" syntax more visible and useful. In particular, you can now `Reverts Dxx` in a revision or commit, and `Reverts <hash>` from a revision.
When you do, the corresponding object will get a more-visible cross-reference marker in its timeline:
{F5405517}
From here, we can look at surfacing revert information more heavily, since we can now query it on revision/commit pages via edges.
Test Plan: Used "reverts <hash>" and "reverts <revision>" in Differential and Diffusion, got sensible results in the timeline.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13057
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18978
Summary:
See PHI307. Currently, when reviews undraft, we retroactively add in older activity to the mail ("alice created this revision...").
However, we don't add that activity to the mail tags, so the relevant tags (like "revision created") are dropped forever.
Instead, use the same set of transactions for both mail body and mail tag construction.
This should be obsoleted in the relatively near future by T10448, but it's a better/more correct behavior in general and we probably can't get rid of tags completely for a while.
Test Plan:
Applied patch, created a revision with builds, saw it auto-undraft after builds finished. Used `bin/mail list-outbound` and `bin/mail show-outbound` to see the mail. Verified that it included retroactive text ("created this revision") AND retroactive tags.
Note that the tag for "A new revision is created" is `DifferentialTransaction::MAILTAG_REVIEW_REQUEST` with literal value `differential-review-request`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18941
Summary:
See PHI309. There is a window of time between when all builds pass and when Harbormaster actually publishes a revision out of draft.
If any other user tries to interact with the revision during that window, they'll pick up the undraft transaction as a side effect. However, they won't have permission to apply it and will be stopped by a validation error.
Instead, only automatically publish a revision if the actor is the revision author or some system/application user (essentially always Harbormaster).
Test Plan:
- Added a `echo ...; sleep(30);` to `HarbormasterBuildEngine->updateBuildable()` before the `applyTransactions()` at the bottom.
- Wrote an "Always, run an HTTP request" Herald rule and Harbormaster build plan.
- Ran daemons with `bin/phd debug task`.
- Created a new revision with `arc diff`, as user A.
- Waited for `phd` to enter the race window.
- In a separate browser, as user B, submitted a comment via `differential.revision.edit`.
- Before patch: edits during the race window were rejected with a validation error, "you don't have permission to request review".
- After patch: edits go through cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18921
Summary:
See PHI230. Currently, we denormalize raw line counts onto diffs and revisions, but not added/removed line counts.
I'd like to try a `[---+ ]` sort of size hint element (see D16322 for more) as a general approach to conveying size information at a glance and see how it feels, since I think the raw size number isn't very scannable/useful and it may be a significant improvement to hint about how much of a change is throwing stuff out vs adding new stuff.
This just makes the data available without any subquerying and doesn't actually change the UI.
Test Plan:
Created a revision, saw detailed change information populate in the database.
```
mysql> select * from differential_revision where id = 292\G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
id: 292
title: WIP
originalTitle: WIP
phid: PHID-DREV-ux3cxptibn3l5pxsug3z
status: draft
summary: asdf
testPlan: asdf
authorPHID: PHID-USER-cvfydnwadpdj7vdon36z
lastReviewerPHID: NULL
lineCount: 41
dateCreated: 1513179418
dateModified: 1513179418
attached: []
mailKey: h4mn6perdio47o4beomyvu75zezwvredx3mbrlgz
branchName: NULL
viewPolicy: users
editPolicy: users
repositoryPHID: PHID-REPO-wif5lutk5gn3y6ursk4p
properties: {"lines.added":40,"lines.removed":1}
activeDiffPHID: PHID-DIFF-ixjphpunpkenqgukpmce
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
```
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18832
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:
See PHI228. Ref T2543. The current logic gets this slightly wrong: prototypes are off, you create a draft with `--draft`, then promote it with "Request Review". This misses both branches.
Instead, test these conditions a little more broadly. We also need to store broadcast state since `getIsNewObject()` isn't good enough with this workflow.
Test Plan:
- With prototypes on and autopromotion, got a rich email after builds finished.
- With prototypes off, got a rich email immediately.
- With prototypes off and `--draft`, got a rich email after "Request Review".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18801
Summary: See PHI210. Ref T2543. Currently, we don't set this flag if you have prototypes off and don't get any of the new draft stuff, so the mail drops some of the details it is supposed to have.
Test Plan: Disabled prototypes, created a revision, saw summary / test plan in the initial mail.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18771
Summary: Ref T12689. See PHI178. This isn't a complete solution (you may still get mailed via packages/projects) but should fix the obvious issue, where "Resigned" reviewers are incorrectly always sent mail directly.
Test Plan: Had Alice resign, interacted as Bailey, no mail to Alice.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12689
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18758
Summary:
Ref T12539. See PHI190. Currently, each Diff has a `revisionID`, but Revisions do not point at the current active diff. To find the active diff for a given revision, we need to issue a separate query.
Furthermore, this query is inefficient for bulk loads: if we have a lot of revisions, we end up querying for all diff IDs for all those revisions first, then selecting the largest ones and querying again to get the actual diff objects. This strategy could likely be optimized but the query is a mess in any case.
In several cases, it's useful to have the active diff PHID without needing to do a second query -- sometimes for convenience, and sometimes for performance.
T12539 is an example of such a case: it would be nice to refine the bucketing logic (which only depends on active diff PHIDs), but it feels bad to make the page heavier to do it.
For now, this is unused. I'll start using it to fix the bucketing issue, and then we can expand it gradually to address other performance/convenience issues.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations, inspected database, saw sensible values.
- Created a new revision, saw a sensible database value.
- Updated an existing revision, saw database update properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12539
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18756
Summary:
Ref T2543. Fixes two relatively minor things:
- When builds finish in Harbormaster, send mail "From" the author.
- Set the `firstBroadcast` flag so that initial mail picks up earlier history (notably, the "reviewers" line).
For now, I'm not setting `firstBroadcast` on explicit "Request Review" (but maybe we should), and not trying to deal with weird cases where you leave a bunch of comments on a draft. Those might be fine as-is or may get tweaked later.
Test Plan: Created a revision with Harbormaster builds, ran builds, saw initial email come "From" the right user with more metadata.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18748
Summary: Ref T2543. After D18731, Herald build rules run more often, but now incorrectly try to run builds when Diffusion closes a revision because a commit landed.
Test Plan: Made some mundane updates locally; this is tricky to test comprehensively locally so I'm mostly planning to just push it to `secure`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18745
Summary:
Ref T2543. Instead of autosubmitting revisions to "Needs Review" when builds finish, allow them to be held in "Draft" indefinitely.
There's currently no UI for this. I plan to just expose it as `arc diff --draft` for now, in a followup change.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision (via Conduit) with "hold as draft", saw it hold as draft after builds finished.
- Created a revision (normally), saw it autosubmit after builds finished.
- Requested review of a "hold as draft" revision to kick it out of draft state.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18737
Summary:
Ref T2543. Fixes T10109.
Currently, Herald only runs in Differential when a change updates the diff. This is partly for historical reasons, and partly because we don't want to restart builds every time someone makes a comment. However, this behavior is inconsistent with other applications (which always trigger on any change), and occasionally confusing to users (in T10109, for example) or otherwise undesirable.
A similar issue is that T2543 has introduced a "Draft" state, where revisions don't send normal mail until builds finish. This interacts poorly with "Send me an email" rules (which shouldn't do anything here) and particularly with "Send me an email + only run these actions the first time the rule matches", since that might have an effect like "do nothing when the revision is created, then never anything again since you already did nothing once".
To navigate both of these issues, let objects tell Herald that certain actions (like mail or builds) are currently forbidden. If a rule uses a field or action which is currently forbidden, the whole rule automatically fails before it executes, but doesn't count toward "only the first time" as far as Herald's tracking of rule execution is concerned.
Then, forbid mail for draft revisions, and forbid builds for revisions which didn't just get updated. Forbidding mail fixes the issues with "Send me an email" that were created by the introduction of the draft state.
Finally, make Herald run on every revision update, not just substantive updates to the diff. This resolves T10109.
Test Plan:
Created revisions via the draft -> submit workflow, saw different transcripts. Here's a mail action being forbidden for a draft:
{F5237324}
Here's a build action being forbidden for a "mundane" update:
{F5237326}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T10109, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18731
Summary:
Ref T2543. When Harbormaster finishes builds and promotes a draft revision to review, we currently publish "Harbormaster requested review of...".
Instead, attribute this action to the author, since that's more natural and more useful.
Test Plan: Promoted a diff locally, saw it attributed to me rather than Harbormaster.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18730
Summary: Ref T2543. When revisions are in the draft state, tell the user what we're waiting for or why they aren't moving forward.
Test Plan: {F5228840}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18714
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:
Ref T2543. Currently, we always do some special things when a revision is created, mostly adding more stuff to the mail.
With drafts, we want to suppress initial mail and send this big, rich mail only when the revision actually moves out of "draft".
Prepare the code for this, with the actual methods hard-coded to the current behavior. This will probably take some tweaking but I think I got most of it.
Test Plan: Banged around in Differential so it sent some mail, saw normal mail without anything new.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18627
Summary:
Ref T12033. This is a very narrow fix for this issue, but it should fix the major error: don't attach patches if they're bigger than the mail body limit (by default, 512KB).
Specifically, the logs from an install in T12033 show a 112MB patch being attached, and that's the biggest practical problem here.
I'll follow up on the tasks with more nuanced future work.
Test Plan: Enabled `differential.attach-patches`, saw a patch attached to email. Set the byte limit very low, saw patches get thrown away.
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12033
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18598
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:
Ref T2543. This updates and migrates the status change transactions:
- All storage now records the modern modular transaction ("differential.revision.status"), not the obsolete non-modular transaction ("differential:status").
- All storage now records the modern constants ("accepted"), not the obsolete numeric values ("2").
Test Plan:
- Selected all the relevant rows before/after migration, data looked sane.
- Browsed around, reviewed timelines, no changes after migration.
- Changed revision states, saw appropriate new transactions in the database and timeline rendering.
- Grepped for `differential:status`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18419
Summary: Ref T2543. All writers now write modern statuses. Make all readers explicit about whether they are reading modern or legacy statuses, so I can swap the storage format.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `getStatus()`, scanned the list. Other applications have methods with this name so it's possible I missed something.
- Browed around, changed revision statuses.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18417
Summary: Ref T2543. This cleans up all the "when no one is rejecting/blocking and someone accepted, mark the revision overall as accepted" logic to use more modern status stuff instead of `ArcanistDifferentialRevisionStatus`.
Test Plan:
- Updated revisions, saw them go to "Needs Review".
- Accepted, requested changes to revisions.
- Updated one with changes requested, saw it go to "needs review" again.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18413
Summary:
Ref T2543. This cleans up a couple of remaining rough edges:
- We could do an older TYPE_ACTION "close" via the daemons.
- We could do an older TYPE_ACTION "close" via `arc close-revision`, explicitly or implicitly in `arc land`, via API (`differential.close`).
- We could do an older TYPE_ACTION "rethink" ("Plan Changes") via the API, via `arc diff --plan-changes` (`differential.createcomment`).
Move these to modern modular transactions, then get rid of all the validation and application logic for them. This nukes a bunch of `ArcanistDifferentialRevision::...` junk.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/repository reparse --message rXYZ...` to reparse a commit, closing a corresponding revision.
- Used `differential.close` to close a revision.
- Used `differential.createcomment` to plan changes to a revision.
- Reviewed transaction log for full "closed by commit" message (linking to commit and mentioning author).
- Grepped for `::TYPE_ACTION` to look for remaining callsites, didn't find any.
- Grepped for `differential.close` and `differential.createcomment` in `arcanist/` to look for anything suspicious, seemed clean.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18412
Summary:
Ref T2543. Converts the TYPE_STATUS transaction (used to render "This revision now requires changes to proceed.", "This revision is accepted and ready to land.", etc) to ModularTransactions.
Also, continue consolidating all the status-related information (here, more colors and icons) into a single place. By the end of this, we may learn that NEEDS_REVIEW uses //every// color.
Test Plan:
Reviewed old status transactions (unchanged) and created new ones (looked the same as the old ones).
(I plan to migrate all of these a few diffs from now, around when I change the storage format.)
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18410
Summary:
Ref T2543. Ref T10967. This isn't precisely related to "draft" status, but while I'm churning this stuff anyway, get rid of the old double writes to clean the code up a bit.
These were added in T10967 to make sure the migration was reversible/recoverable, but we haven't seen any issues with it in several months so I believe they can now be removed safely. Nothing has read this table since ~April.
Test Plan: Took various review actions on revisions (accept, reject, resign, comment, etc). If this change is correct, there should be no visible effect.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18398
Summary:
Fixes T12642. Currently, writing "Fixes T..." in a comment gets picked up as a formal "fixes".
This is a bit confusing, and can also give you a "no effect" error if you "fixes ..." a task which is already "fixes"'d.
We could make the duplicate action a non-error, but just prevent the text from having an effect instead, which seems cleaner.
Test Plan:
- Wrote "Fixes ..." in a summary, saw a "fixes" relationship established.
- Wrote "Fixes ..." in a comment, got a "mention" instead.
- `var_dump()`'d some stuff as a sanity check, looked reasonable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12642
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17805
Summary:
Previously, "reject" and "reject older" were separate statuses. Now, they're both shades of "reject".
Set the "older reject" flag properly when we find a non-current reject.
Test Plan:
- User A accepts a revision.
- User B rejects it.
- Author updates it.
- Before patch: incorrectly transitions to "accepted" ("older" reject is ignored).
- After patch: correctly transitions to "needs review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17653
The root issue here is actually just that I cherry-picked stable locally
but did not push it. However, this is a minor issue I also caught while
double-checking things.
Auditors: chad
Summary:
Fixes T12496. Sticky accept was accidentally impacted by the "void" changes in D17566.
Instead, don't always downgrade all accepts/rejects: on update, we only want to downgrade accepts.
Test Plan:
- With sticky accept off, updated an accepted revision: new state is "needs review".
- With sticky accept on, updated an accepted revision: new state is "accepted" (sticky accept working correctly).
- Did "reject" + "request review" to make sure that still works, worked fine.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12496
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17605
Summary:
Ref T12272. If you own a package which owns "/", this allows you to force-accept package reviews for packages which own sub-paths, like "/src/adventure/".
The default UI looks something like this:
```
[X] Accept as epriestley
[X] Accept as Root Package
[ ] Force accept as Adventure Package
```
By default, force-accepts are not selected.
(I may do some UI cleanup and/or annotate "because you own X" in the future and/or mark these accepts specially in some way, particularly if this proves confusing along whatever dimension.)
Test Plan: {F4314747}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17569
Summary: Ref T10967. This change is similar to D17566, but for rejects.
Test Plan:
- Create a revision as A, with reviewer B.
- Reject as B.
- Request review as A.
- Before patch: stuck in "rejected".
- After patch: transitions back to "needs review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17568
Summary: Ref T10967. This moves all remaining "request review" pathways (just `differential.createcomment`) to the new code, and removes the old action.
Test Plan: Requested review on a revision, `grep`'d for the action constant.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17567
Summary:
Ref T10967. This is explained in more detail in T10967#217125
When an author does "Request Review" on an accepted revision, void (in the sense of "cancel out", like a bank check) any "accepted" reviewers on the current diff.
Test Plan:
- Create a revision with author A and reviewer B.
- Accept as B.
- "Request Review" as A.
- (With sticky accepts enabled.)
- Before patch: revision swithced back to "accepted".
- After patch: the earlier review is "voided" by te "Request Review", and the revision switches to "Review Requested".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17566
Summary:
Ref T10967. Improves some method names:
- `Revision->getReviewerStatus()` -> `Revision->getReviewers()`
- `Revision->attachReviewerStatus()` -> `Revision->attachReviewers()`
- `Reviewer->getStatus()` -> `Reviewer->getReviewerStatus()` (this is mostly to make this more greppable)
Test Plan:
- bunch o' `grep`
- Browsed around.
- If I missed anything, it should fatal in an obvious way. We have a lot of other `getStatus()` calls and it's hard to be sure I got them all.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17522
Summary: Ref T10967. The old name was because we had a `getReviewers()` tied to `needRelationships()`, rename this method to use a simpler and more clear name.
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17519
Summary:
Ref T10967. We have a "commented" state to help reviewers get a better sense of who is part of a discussion, and a "last action" state to help distinguish between "accept" and "accepted an older version", for the purposes of sticky accepts and as a UI hint.
Currently, these are first-class states, partly beacuse we were somewhat limited in what we could do with edges. However, a more flexible way to represent them is as flags separate from the primary state flag.
In the new storage, write them as separate state information: `lastActionDiffPHID` stores the Diff PHID of the last review action (accept, reject, etc). `lastCommentDiffPHID` stores the Diff PHID of the last comment (top-level or inline).
Test Plan: Applied storage changes, commented and acted on a revision. Saw appropriate state reflected in the database.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17514
Summary:
Ref T10967. `differential.createcomment` is a frozen API method which has been obsoleted by `differential.revision.edit`.
It is the only remaining way to apply an "accept", "reject", or "resign" action using the old "ACTION" code.
Instead of using the old code, sneakly apply a new type of transaction in these cases instead.
Then, remove all the remaining old code for this stuff on the write pathways.
Test Plan:
- Used "differential.createcomment" to accept, reject, and resign from a revision.
- Grepped for all removed ACTION_X constants, found them only in rendering code.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17513
Summary: Ref T10967. See that task for some discussion. This lets us do double writes on this pathway.
Test Plan: Set an Owners package to auto-review. Created revisions which triggered it: one with no reviewers (autoreview added); one with the package as a blocking reviewer explicitly (no automatic stuff happened, as expected).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17512
Summary:
Ref T12098.
We have two methods (`supportsEditEngineConfiguration()` and `isEngineConfigurable()`) which sort of do the same thing and probably should be merged.
For now, just swap which one we override to get "Create Revision" out of the Quick Create menu.
Test Plan: No more "Create Revision" in Quick Create menu.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12098
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17204
Summary:
Ref T11114. When you comment, we try to upgrade your review status to "commented".
This can conflict with upgrading it to "accepted" or "rejected", or removing it entirely.
For now, just avoid making this update. After T10967, I expect "you commented" to be orthogonal to accepted/rejected so it should stop conflicting on its own.
Test Plan:
- As an "added" reviewer, accepted a revision with a comment in the same transaction.
- Before patch: accept didn't stick.
- After patch: accept sticks.
This may be somewhat magical/order-dependent but I was able to reproduce it locally.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17146
Summary: Ref T11114. Fixes T10323.
Test Plan:
- Marked comments as done only: no warning about not leaving a comment.
- Did nothing: warning about posting an empty comment.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T10323
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17120
Summary:
Ref T11114. This restores:
- Commandeering should exeucte Herald.
- Commandeering should swap reviewers.
- "Request Review" on an "Accepted" revision should downgrade reviewers so they have to accept again.
Test Plan:
- Commandeered, saw Herald run and reviewers swap.
- Requested review of an accepted revision, saw it drop down to "Needs Review" with "Accepted Prior" on the reviewer.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17118
Summary: Ref T11114. This comments nearly working on EditEngine. Only significant issue I caught is that the "View" link doesn't render properly because it depends on JS which is tricky to hook up. I'll clean that up in a future diff.
Test Plan: {F2279201}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17116
