Summary:
Fixes T13475. Sometimes, we issue a "no op" / "default permit" / "unchallenged" MFA token, when a user with no MFA configured does something which is configured to attempt (but not strictly require) MFA.
An example of this kind of action is changing a username: usernames may be changed even if MFA is not set up.
(Some other operations, notably "Sign With MFA", strictly require that MFA actually be set up.)
When a user with no MFA configured takes a "try MFA" action, we see that they have no factors configured and issue a token so they can continue. This is correct. However, this token causes the assocaited timeline story to get an MFA badge.
This badge is incorrect or at least wildly misleading, since the technical assertion it currently makes ("the user answered any configured MFA challenge to do this, if one exists") isn't explained properly and isn't useful anyway.
Instead, only badge the story if the user actually has MFA and actually responded to some kind of MFA challege. The badge now asserts "this user responded to an MFA challenge", which is expected/desired.
Test Plan:
- As a user with no MFA, renamed a user. Before patch: badged story. After patch: no badge.
- As a user with MFA, renamed a user. Got badged stories in both cases.
Maniphest Tasks: T13475
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20958
Summary: See PHI1499. This error message doesn't provide parameters, and can be a little bit more helpful.
Test Plan: {F6957550}
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20859
Summary:
See PHI1442. If you have a bulk-editable datasource field with a composite datasource, it can currently fatal on the bulk edit workflow because the viewer is not passed correctly.
The error looks something like this:
> Argument 1 passed to PhabricatorDatasourceEngine::setViewer() must be an instance of PhabricatorUser, null given, called in /Users/epriestley/dev/core/lib/phabricator/src/applications/typeahead/datasource/PhabricatorTypeaheadCompositeDatasource.php on line 231
Test Plan: Configured a Maniphest custom field with a composite datasource, then tried a bulk edit. Things worked cleanly instead of fataling.
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20841
Summary:
Fixes T13415. Provide a way for subtypes to customize the behavior of "Change Subtype" actions that appear above comment areas.
Subtypes may disable this action by specifying `"mutations": []`, or provide a list of subtypes.
The bulk editor and API can still perform any change.
Test Plan:
- Tried to define an invalid "mutations" list with a bad subtype, got a sensible error.
- Specified a limited mutations list and an empty mutations list, verified that corresponding tasks got corresponding actions.
- Used the bulk editor to perform a freeform mutation.
- Verified that tasks of a subtype with no "mutations" still work the same way they used to (allow mutation into any subtype).
Maniphest Tasks: T13415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20810
Summary: See PHI1434. For objects that support subtypes and have subtypes configured, allow Herald rules to act on subtypes.
Test Plan:
- Configured task and project subtypes, wrote Herald rules, saw "Subtypes" as an option, saw appropriate typeahead values and detail page rendering.
- Unconfigured project subtypes, saw field vanish from UI for new rules.
- Wrote a "subtype"-depenent rule that added a comment, interacted with tasks of that subtype and a different subtype. Saw Herald act only on tasks with the correct subtype.
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20809
Summary: Ref T13411. When users click a link to explain a capability (like the policy header on many objects, or the link next to specific capabilities in "Applications", "Diffusion", etc), inline the full ruleset for the custom policy into the dialog if the object has a custom policy.
Test Plan: {F6856365}
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20805
Summary:
Ref T13411. This cleans up policy name rendering. We ultimately render into three contexts:
- Plain text contexts, like `bin/policy show`.
- Transaction contexts, where we're showing a policy change. In these cases, we link some policies (like project policies and custom policies) but the links go directly to the relevant object or a minimal explanation of the change. We don't link policies like "All Users".
- Capability contexts, where we're describing a capability, like "Can Push" or cases in Applicaitons. In these cases, we link all policies to the full policy explanation flow.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/policy show` to examine the policy of an object with a project policy, no longer saw HTML.
- Viewed the transaction logs of Applications (ModularTransactions) and Tasks (not ModularTransactions) with policy edits, including project and custom policies.
- Clicked "Custom Policy" in both logs, got consistent dialogs.
- Viewed application detail pages, saw all capabities linked to explanatory capability dialogs. The value of having this dialog is that the user can get a full explanation of special rules even if the policy is something mundane like "All Users".
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20804
Summary:
Ref T13411. Since circa D19829, transactions have rendered policy changes in a modern way, notably making "Custom Policy" clickable to show the policy rules.
Edit transactions in Applications still use a separate, older approach to render policies. This produces policy renderings which don't use modern quoting rules and don't link in a modern way.
Make Applications use the same rendering code that other transactions (like normal edit/view edits) use.
Test Plan: Edited policies in Applications, saw more useful transactions in the log. Clicked "Custom Policy" in the transaction log and got a useful explanation of the policy.
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20801
Summary:
Fixes T8952. These feed stories are not interesting and tend to be generated as collateral damage when a non-story update is made to an old task and someone has a "subscribe me" Herald rule.
Also clean up some of the Herald field/condition indexing behavior slightly.
Test Plan: Wrote a "Subscribe X" herald rule, made a trivial update to a task. Before: low-value feed story; after: no feed story.
Maniphest Tasks: T8952
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20797
Summary:
Fixes T13389. Currently, we try to "newSubtypeMap()" unconditionally, even if the underlying object does not support subtypes.
- Only try to build a subtype map if subtype transactions are actually being applied.
- When subtype transactions are applied to a non-subtypable object, fail more explicitly.
Test Plan: Clicked "Make Editable" in a fresh Calendar transaction form, got an editable form instead of a fatal from "newSubtypeMap()". (Calendar events are not currently subtypable.)
Maniphest Tasks: T13389
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20741
Summary: Depends on D20738. Ref T13366. Fixes T8389. Now that the infrastructure is in place, actually send email to external addresses.
Test Plan: Used `bin/phortune invoice` to generate invoices and saw associated external accounts receive mail in `bin/mail list-outbound`.
Maniphest Tasks: T13366, T8389
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20739
Summary: Fixes T13355. This didn't appear to be a ton of extra work, we just didn't get it for free in the original implementation in D14635.
Test Plan:
- Saw "date" custom fields appear in Conduit API documentation for "maniphest.edit".
- Set custom "date" field to null and non-null values via the API.
{F6666582}
Maniphest Tasks: T13355
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20690
Summary: Humble user cannot silence/mute project if he/she has no CAN_EDIT permissions in it. You can actually leave it but if project is locked - then you're scr*wed.
Test Plan:
1. On a testing phabricator instance created a dummy project
2. Changed that project permissions CAN_EDIT to be by admin only
3. Added poor soul with no CAN_EDIT permissions
4. Logged it in with poor soul
5. Tried to silence the project
6. The Project is successfully silenced
7. User is happy :)
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, Pawka
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20675
Summary: See rPaacc62463d61. D20551 added some `CAN_INTERACT` checks, but `CAN_INTERACT` needs to be checked with `canInteract()` to fall back to `CAN_VIEW` properly. D20558 cleaned up most of this but missed one callsite; fix that up too.
Test Plan: Removed a comment on a commit.
Reviewers: amckinley, 20after4
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20648
Summary:
See D20540. I mistakenly multiplied some strenghts by 100 and others by 1000 when converting them to integers for `PhutilSortVector`.
Multiply them all by 100 (that is, divide the ones which were multiplied by 1000 by 10) to put things back the way they were.
Test Plan: quick mafs
Reviewers: amckinley, richardvanvelzen
Reviewed By: richardvanvelzen
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20622
Summary: Ref T13319. Ref PHI1302. Migrate `PhabricatorEditEngineConfigurationTransaction` to modular transactions and add some additional transaction rendering to make these edits less opaque.
Test Plan: Hit all the form edit controllers, viewed resulting transaction timeline.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T13319
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20595
Summary:
Ref T13319. Currently, transactions about changes to a default form value use a raw internal key for the affected field and don't show the actual value change.
An ideal implementation will likely require us to specialize a great deal of rendering, but we can do much better than we currently do without too much work:
- Try to pull the actual `EditField` object for the key so we can `getLabel()` it and get a human-readable label (like `Visible To` instead of `policy.view`).
- Add a "(Show Changes)" action that dumps the raw values as more-or-less JSON, so you can at least figure out what happened if you're sophisticated enough.
Test Plan:
Before:
{F6516640}
After:
{F6516642}
The quality of "Show Details" varies a lot. For some fields, like "Description", it's pretty good:
{F6516645}
For others, like "Assigned To", it's better than nothing but pretty technical:
{F6516647}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13319
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20594
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/view-task-from-maniphest-e-mail-doesnt-have-url/2827>.
I added "View Task" / "View Commit" buttons recently but the logic for generating URIs isn't quite right. Fix it up.
Test Plan:
- Commented on a task.
- Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ... --dump-html > out.html` to dump the HTML.
- Previewed the HTML in a browser.
- This time, actually clicked the button to go to the task.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20586
Summary: Ref T13303. I upgraded this to a vector-based sort but forgot to type a "v", which means the sort has different stability under PHP 5.5. See D20582 for a root cause fix.
Test Plan: Locally, on PHP7, not much changes. I expect this to fix the odd selection of title stories in mail and notification stories on `secure`, which is running PHP 5.5.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13303
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20583
Summary:
Ref T13303. In D20525 I fixed an issue where transaction rendering could use cached values with the wrong viewer by reloading transactions.
However, reloading transactions may also reorder them as a side effect, since `withPHIDs(...)` does not imply an order. This can make transaction rendering order in mail wrong/inconsistent.
Instead, reorder the transactions before continuing so mail transaction order is consistent.
Test Plan: Applied a group of transactions to a task, saw a more consistent rendering order in mail after the change.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13303
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20563
Summary:
See downstream <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T1050>. Some time ago, we added a "View Revision" button to Differential mail. This hasn't created any problems and generally seems good / desirable.
It isn't trivial to just add everywhere since we need a translation string in each case, but at least add it to Maniphest for now. Going forward, we can fill in more applications as they come up.
Test Plan:
Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id <x> --dump-html`:
{F6470461}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20561
Summary:
See downstream <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88655>. This is very marginal, but we currently allow comments consisting of //only// whitespace.
These are probably always mistakes, so treat them like completely empty comments.
(We intentionally do not trim leading or trailing whitespace from comments when posting them becuase leading spaces can be used to trigger codeblock formatting.)
Test Plan:
- Posted empty, nonempty, and whitespace-only comments.
- Whitespace-only comments now have the same behavior as truly empty comments (e.g., do not actually generate a transaction).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20562
Summary:
Ref T13289. See D20551. In D20551, I implemented some "CAN_INTERACT" checks against certain edits, but these checks end up testing "CAN_INTERACT" against objects like Conpherence threads which do not support a distinct "CAN_INTERACT" permission. I misrembered how the "CAN_INTERACT" fallback to "CAN_VIEW" actually works: it's not fully automatic, and needs some explicit "interact, or view if interact is not available" checks.
Use the "interact" wrappers to test these policies so they fall back to "CAN_VIEW" if an object does not support "CAN_INTERACT". Generally, objects which have a "locked" state have a separate "CAN_INTERACT" permission; objects which don't have a "locked" state do not.
Test Plan: Created and edited comments in Conpherence (or most applications other than Maniphest).
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13289
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20558
Summary:
Ref T13289. If you do this:
- Subscribe to a task (so we don't generate a subscribe side-effect later).
- Prepare a transaction group: sign with MFA, change projects (don't make any changes), add a comment.
- Submit the transaction group.
...you'll get prompted "Some actions don't have any effect (the non-change to projects), apply remaining effects?".
If you confirm, you get MFA'd, but the MFA flow loses the "continue" confirmation, so you get trapped in a workflow loop of confirming and MFA'ing.
Instead, retain the "continue" bit through the MFA.
Also, don't show "You can't sign an empty transaction group" if there's a comment.
See also T13295, since the amount of magic here can probably be reduced. There's likely little reason for "continue" or "hisec" to be magic nowadays.
Test Plan:
- Went through the workflow above.
- Before: looping workflow.
- After: "Continue" carries through the MFA gate.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13289
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20552
Summary:
Ref T13289. This tightens up a couple of corner cases around locked threads.
Locking is primarily motivated by two use cases: stopping nonproductive conversations on open source installs (similar to GitHub's feature); and freezing object state for audit/record-keeping purposes.
Currently, you can edit or remove comments on a locked thread, but neither use case is well-served by allowing this. Require "CAN_INTERACT" to edit or remove a comment.
Administrators can still remove comments from a locked thread to serve "lock a flamewar, then clean it up", since "Remove Comment" on a comment you don't own is fairly unambiguously an administrative action.
Test Plan:
- On a locked task, tried to edit and remove my comments as a non-administrator. Saw appropriate disabled UI state and error dialogs (actions were disallowed).
- On a locked task, tried to remove another user's comments as an administrator. This works.
- On a normal task, edited comments normally.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13289
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20551
Summary:
Ref T13283. Currently, each Editor sets its own group ID, so if you create a revision and then Herald does some stuff, the two groups of transactions get different group IDs.
This means the test console is slightly misleading (it will only pick up the Herald transactions). It's going to be misleading anyway (Herald obviously can't evaluate Herald transactions) but this is at least a little closer to reality and stops Herald actions from masking non-Herald actions.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision. Herald applied one transaction.
- Used the test console.
- Before: The test console only picked up the single most recent Herald transaction.
- After: The test console picked up the whole transaction group.
{F6464059}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13283
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20546
Summary:
Ref T13290. Ref T13291. Now that a full URI is a "mention", the full URI in "Differential Revision: ..." also triggers a mention.
Stop it from doing that, since these mentions are silly/redundant/unintended.
The API here is also slightly odd; simplify it a little bit to get rid of doing "append" with "get + append + set".
Test Plan: Used `bin/repository reparse --publish` to republish commits with "Differential Revision: ..." and verified that the revision PHID was properly dropped from the mention list.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13291, T13290
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20544
Summary:
See PHI1222. When we publish several transactions to feed at once, we sort them by "action strength" to figure out which one gets to be the title story.
This sort currently uses `msort()`, which uses `asort()`, which is not a stable sort and has inconsistent behavior across PHP versions:
{F6463721}
Switch to `msortv()`, which is a stable sort. Previously, see also T6861.
If all transactions have the same strength, we'll now consistently pick the first one.
This probably (?) does not impact anything in the upstream, but is good from a consistency point of view.
Test Plan:
Top story was published after this change and uses the chronologically first transaction as the title story.
Bottom story was published before this change and uses the chronologically second transaction as the title story.
Both stories have two transactions with the same strength ("create" + "add reviewer").
{F6463722}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20540
Summary: Depends on D20533. Allow querying for transactions of a specific object type, so you can run queries like "Show all edits to Herald rules between date X and Y".
Test Plan: {F6463478}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20534
Summary:
Ref T13294. An install is interested in a way to easily answer audit-focused questions like "what edits were made to any Herald rule in Q1 2019?".
We can answer this kind of question with a more granular version of feed that focuses on being exhaustive rather than being human-readable.
This starts a rough version of it and deals with the two major tricky pieces: transactions are in a lot of different tables; and paging across them is not trivial.
To solve "lots of tables", we just query every table. There's a little bit of sleight-of-hand to get this working, but nothing too awful.
To solve "paging is hard", we order by "<dateCreated, phid>". The "phid" part of this order doesn't have much meaning, but it lets us put every transaction in a single, stable, global order and identify a place in that ordering given only one transaction PHID.
Test Plan: {F6463076}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13294
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20531
Summary:
See <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T179591>. Some time ago, all handle rendering preloaded handles: things emitted a list of PHIDs they'd need handles for, then later used only those PHIDs.
Later, we introduced `HandlePool` and lazy/on-demand handle loading. Modern transactions mostly use this to render object PHIDs.
When we build mail, many newer transactions use an on-demand load to fetch handles to render transactions. This on-demand load may use the original viewer (the acting user) instead of the correct viewer (the mail recipient): we fetch and reset handles using the correct viewer, but do not overwrite the active viewer for on-demand loading. This could cause mail to leak the titles of related objects to users who don't have permission to see them.
Instead, just reload the transactions with the correct viewer when building mail instead of playing a bunch of `setViewer()` and `clone` games. Until we're 100% on modular transactions, several pieces of the stack cache viewer or state information.
Test Plan:
- Created task A (public) with subtask B (private).
- Closed subtask B as a user with access to it.
- Viewed mail sent to subscribers of task A who can not see subtask B.
- Before change: mail discloses title of subtask B.
- After change: mail properly labels subtask B as "Restricted Task".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20525
Summary:
Ref T13283. See PHI1202. See D20519. When we apply a group of transactions, label all of them with the same "group ID".
This allows other things, notably Herald, to figure out which transactions applied together in a faithful way rather than by guessing, even though the guess was probably pretty good most of the time.
Also expose this to `transaction.search` in case callers want to do something similar. They get a list of transaction IDs from webhooks already anyway, but some callers use `transaction.search` outside of webhooks and this information may be useful.
Test Plan:
- Ran Herald Test Console, saw faithful selection of recent transactions.
- Changed hard limit from 1000 to 1, saw exception. Users should be very hard-pressed to hit this normally (they'd have to add 990-ish custom fields, then edit every field at once, I think) so I'm just fataling rather than processing some subset of the transaction set.
- Called `transaction.search`, saw group ID information available.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13283
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20524
Summary:
Depends on D20507. See PHI1232. Previously, see T13255 and D20209.
Since nothing seems to have exploded after "projects" was exposed, give "subscribers" the same treatment.
Test Plan: Added, removed, and modified subscribers. Queried transactions with "transaction.search", saw sensible "type" and data.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20508
Summary:
Ref T13276. Previously, these edges were added directly with an `EdgeEditor`, so they did not generate transaction stories.
Now, they're added properly, but they aren't terribly useful in feed/mail. Hide them in those contexts, like we already do with other types of similar edges.
Test Plan: Will verify behavior on `secure`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13276
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20491
Summary:
See PHI1209. When a task is in "Hard Lock" mode, it's still possible to apply some changes to it. Notably:
- You can subscribe/unsubscribe.
- You can mention it on another object.
- You can add a relationship from some other object to it (e.g., select it as a "Parent Task" for some other task).
Currently, these types of edits will show a "Lock Overridden" timeline emblem icon. However, they should not: you didn't override a lock to make these changes, they just bypass locks.
For now, special case these cases (self subscribe/unsubscribe + inverse edge edits) so they don't get the little icon, since I think this list is exhaustive today.
Some day we should modularize this, but we'd need code like this anyway (since TYPE_SUBSCRIBE is not modular yet), and this seems unlikely to cause problems even if it's a bit rough.
Test Plan:
- Hard-locked a task.
- Subscribed/unsubscribed, mentioned, relationship'd it as a non-author. No timeline emblems.
- Soft-locked a task.
- Subscribed/unsubscribed, mentioned, relationship'd it, no timeline emblems.
- Clicked "Edit", answered "yes" to the override prompt, edited it. Got a timeline emblem.
- Added some comments and stuff to a normal non-locked task, no emblems.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20513
Summary: See PHI1220. Ref T13272. I accidentally left the ability to set a query limit behind when updating this.
Test Plan: Edited a query panel, set/removed the limit, tried to set an invalid limit.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20472
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/unable-to-reload-object-that-hasnt-been-loaded/2677>.
When editing "Config" objects, they currently get a PHID set outside of the TransactionEditor. They probably should not, but fixing that is likely an involved change.
This causes us to incorrectly fail to detect `$is_new` correctly and try to `reload()` and object with no ID.
To work around this, test for new objects with `getID()` instead of `getPHID()`.
Test Plan: Edited any config value with the web UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20482
Summary:
Depends on D20461. Ref T13276. Ref T13054.
Currently, we acquire the transaction read lock after populating "old values" in transactions and filtering transactions with no effect.
This isn't early enough to prevent all weird chaotic races: if two processes try to apply a "close revision" transaction at the same time, this can happen:
```
PROCESS A PROCESS B
Old Value = Open Old Value = Open
Transaction OK: Yes Transaction OK: Yes
Acquire Read Lock Acquire Read Lock
Got Read Lock! Wait...
Apply Transactions Wait...
New Value = Closed Wait...
Release Lock Wait...
Got Read Lock!
Apply Transactions
New Value = Closed
Release Lock
```
That's not great: both processes apply an "Open -> Closed" transaction since this was a valid transaction from the viewpoint of each process when it did the checks.
We actually want this:
```
PROCESS A PROCESS B
Acquire Read Lock Acquire Read Lock
Got Read Lock! Wait...
Old Value = Open Wait...
Transaction OK: Yes Wait...
Apply Transactions Wait...
New Value = Closed Wait...
Release Lock Wait...
Got Read Lock!
>>> Old Value = Closed
>>> Transaction Has No Effect!
>>> Do Nothing / Abort
Release Lock
```
Move the "lock" part up so we do that.
This may cause some kind of weird second-order effects, but T13054 went through pretty cleanly and we have to do this to get correct behavior, so we can survive those if/when they arise.
Test Plan:
- Added a `sleep(10)` before the lock.
- Ran `bin/repository message --reparse X` in two console windows, where X is a commit that closes revision Y and Y is open.
- Before patch: both windows closed the revision and added duplicate transactions.
- After patch: only one of the processes had an effect.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: jmeador
Maniphest Tasks: T13276, T13054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20462
Summary:
Ref T13266. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/notification-page-throws-unrecoverable-fatal-error/2651/>.
The "notifications" query currently uses offset paging for no apparent reason (just a legacy issue?), so some of the paging code is only reachable internally.
- Stop it from using offset paging, since modern cursor paging is fine here (and Feed has used cursor paging for a long time).
- Fix the non-offset paging to work like Feed.
Also:
- Remove a couple of stub methods with no callsites after cursor refactoring.
Test Plan:
- Set things up so I had more than 100 notifications and some in the first 100 were policy filtered, to reproduce the issue (I just made `FeedStory` return `NO_ONE` as a visibility policy).
- Applied the patch, notifications now page cleanly.
- Verified that "Next Page" took me to the right place in the result list.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: hskiba
Maniphest Tasks: T13266
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20455
Summary:
See PHI1134. Generally, "alice added a dependent revision: ..." isn't a very interesting story. This relationship itself is valuable, but the creation of the relationship is usually pretty obvious from context.
In the specific case of PHI1134, various scripts are racing one another, but I don't think this story is of much value in the general case anyway.
Test Plan: Edited parent/child revisions, no more feed stories.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20437
Summary:
Depends on D20359. Fixes T12098. When you add a new "Form" item and pick "Create Revision", you currently get a bad link. This is because Differential is kind of special and the form isn't usable directly, even though Differential does use EditEngine.
Allow EditEngine to specify a different create URI, then specify the web UI paste-a-diff flow to fix this.
Test Plan:
- Added "Create Revision" to a portal, clicked it, was sensibly put on the diff flow.
- Grepped for `getCreateURI()`, the only other real use case is to render the "Create X" dropdowns in the upper right.
- Clicked one of those, still worked great.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12098
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20360
Summary:
Ref PHI1173. Currently, you can edit an MFA'd comment without redoing MFA. This is inconsistent with the intent of the MFA badge, since it means an un-MFA'd comment may have an "MFA" badge on it.
Instead, implement these rules:
- If a comment was signed with MFA, you MUST MFA to edit it.
- When removing a comment, add an extra MFA prompt if the user has MFA. This one isn't strictly required, this action is just very hard to undo and seems reasonable to MFA.
Test Plan:
- Made normal comments and MFA comments.
- Edited normal comments and MFA comments (got prompted).
- Removed normal comments and MFA comments (prompted in both cases).
- Tried to edit an MFA comment without MFA on my account, got a hard "MFA absolutely required" failure.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20340
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/unhandled-exception-on-show-older-changes/2545/>.
Before T13266, this query got away without having real paging because it used simple ID paging only and results are never actually hidden (today, you can always see all transactions on an object).
Provide `withIDs()` so the new, slightly stricter paging works.
Test Plan: On an object with "Show Older" in the transaction record, clicked the link. Before: exception in paging code (see Discourse link above). After: transactions loaded cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley, avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20317
Summary:
See PHI1134. Previously, see T13082 and D19969 for some sort-of-related stuff.
Currently, edits work roughly like this:
- Suppose we're editing object X, and we're also going to edit some other object, Y, because X mentioned Y or the edit is making X a child or parent of Y, or unblocking Y.
- Do the actual edit to X, including inverse edits ("alice mentioned Y on X.", "alice added a child revision: X", etc) which apply to Y.
- Run Herald rules on X.
- Publish the edit to X.
The "inverse edits" currently do this whole process inline, in a sub-editor. So the flow expands like this:
- Begin editing X.
- Update properties on X.
- Begin inverse-edge editing Y.
- Update properties on Y.
- Run (actually, skip) Herald rules on Y.
- Publish edits to Y.
- Run Herald rules on X.
- Publish edits to X.
Notably, the "Y" stuff publishes before the "X" Herald rules run. This creates potential problems:
- Herald rules may change the name or visibility policy of "X", but we'll publish mail about it via the edits to Y before those edits apply. This is a problem only in theory, we don't ship any upstream rules like this today.
- Herald rules may "Require Secure Mail", but we won't know that at the time we're building mail about the indirect change to "Y". This is a problem in practice.
Instead, switch to this new flow, where we stop the sub-editors before they publish, then publish everything at the very end once all the edits are complete:
- Begin editing X.
- Update properties on X.
- Begin inverse-edge editing Y.
- Update properties on Y.
- Skip Herald on Y.
- Run Herald rules on X.
- Publish X.
- Publish all child-editors of X.
- Publish Y.
Test Plan:
- Created "Must Encrypt" Herald rules for Tasks and Revisions.
- Edited object "A", an object which the rules applied to directly, and set object "B" (a different object which the rules did not hit) as its parent/child and/or unblocked it.
- In `bin/mail list-outbound`, saw:
- Mail about object "A" all flagged as "Must Encrypt".
- Normal mail from object B not flagged "Must Encrypt".
- Mail from object B about changing relationships to object A flagged as "Must Encrypt".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20283
Summary:
See PHI1098. When users comment on objects, they are automatically subscribed. And when `@alice` mentions `@bailey` on a task, that usually subscribes `@bailey`.
These rules make less sense if the user is a bot. There's generally no reason for a bot to automatically subscribe to objects it acts on (it's not going to read email and follow up later), and it can always subscribe itself pretty easily if it wants (since everything is `*.edit` now and supports subscribe transactions).
Also, don't subscribe bots when they're mentioned for similar reasons. If users really want to subscribe bots, they can do so explicitly.
These rules seem slightly like "bad implicit magic" since it's not immediately obvious why `@abc` subscribes that user but `@xyz` may not, but some of these rules are fairly complicated already (e.g., `@xyz` doesn't subscribe them if they unsubscribed or are implicitly subscribed) and this feels like it gets the right/desired result almost-always.
Test Plan:
On a fresh task:
- Mentioned a bot in a comment with `@bot`.
- Before patch: bot got CC'd.
- After patch: no CC.
- Called `maniphest.edit` via the API to add a comment as a bot.
- Before patch: bot got CC'd.
- After patch: no CC.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20284
Summary:
See PHI1096. Depends on D20213. An install is reporting a hard-to-reproduce issue where a non-transaction gets queued by Herald somehow. This might be in third-party code.
Sprinkle the relevant parts of the code with `final` and type checking to try to catch the problem before it causes a fatal we can't pull a stack trace out of.
Test Plan: Poked around locally (e.g., edited revisions to cause Herald to trigger), but hard to know if this will do what it's supposed to or not without deploying and seeing if it catches anything.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20214
Summary: Depends on D20209. Ref T13255. It would probably be nice to make this into a "real" `*.search` API method some day, but at least document the features for now.
Test Plan: Read documentation.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13255
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20211
Summary:
Depends on D20208. Ref T13255. See that task for some long-winded discussion and rationale. Short version:
- This is a list of operations instead of a list of old/new PHIDs because of scalability issues for large lists (T13056).
- This is a fairly verbose list (instead of, for example, the more concise internal map we sometimes use with "+" and "-" as keys) to try to make the structure obvious and extensible in the future.
- The "add" and "remove" echo the `*.edit` operations.
Test Plan: Called `transaction.search` on an object with project tag changes, saw them in the results.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13255
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20209
Summary: Ref T13255. The "transaction.search" API method currently does not support author constraints, but this is a reasonable thing to support.
Test Plan: Queried transactions by author, hit the error cases.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13255
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20208
Summary:
Ref T13249. See PHI1059. Currently, Subscribe/Unsubscribe require CAN_INTERACT via the web UI and no permissions (i.e., effectively CAN_VIEW) via the API.
Weaken the requirements from the web UI so that you do not need "CAN_INTERACT". This is a product change to the effect that it's okay to subscribe/unsubscribe from anything you can see, even hard-locked tasks. This generally seems reasonable.
Increase the requirements for the actual transaction, which mostly applies to API changes:
- To remove subscribers other than yourself, require CAN_EDIT.
- To add subscribers other than yourself, require CAN_EDIT or CAN_INTERACT. You may have CAN_EDIT but not CAN_INTERACT on "soft locked" tasks. It's okay to click "Edit" on these, click "Yes, override lock", then remove subscribers other than yourself.
This technically plugs some weird, mostly theoretical holes in the API where "attackers" could sometimes make more subscription changes than they should have been able to. Now that we send you email when you're unsubscribed this could only really be used to be mildly mischievous, but no harm in making the policy enforcement more correct.
Test Plan: Against normal, soft-locked, and hard-locked tasks: subscribed, unsubscribed, added and removed subscribers, overrode locks, edited via API. Everything worked like it should and I couldn't find any combination of lock state, policy state, and edit pathway that did anything suspicious.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20174
Summary:
Ref T13248. This will probably need quite a bit of refinement, but we can reasonably allow subtype definitions to adjust custom field behavior.
Some places where we use fields are global, and always need to show all the fields. For example, on `/maniphest/`, where you can search across all tasks, you need to be able to search across all fields that are present on any task.
Likewise, if you "export" a bunch of tasks into a spreadsheet, we need to have columns for every field.
However, when you're clearly in the scope of a particular task (like viewing or editing `T123`), there's no reason we can't hide fields based on the task subtype.
To start with, allow subtypes to override "disabled" and "name" for custom fields.
Test Plan:
- Defined several custom fields and several subtypes.
- Disabled/renamed some fields for some subtypes.
- Viewed/edited tasks of different subtypes, got desired field behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13248
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20161
Summary: Ref T13250. See D20149. Mostly: clarify semantics. Partly: remove magic "null" behavior.
Test Plan: Poked around, but mostly just inspection since these are pretty much one-for-one.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim
Maniphest Tasks: T13250
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20154
Summary: Ref T13250. See D20149. In a number of cases, we use `setQueryParams()` immediately after URI construction. To simplify this slightly, let the constructor take parameters, similar to `HTTPSFuture`.
Test Plan: See inlines.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13250
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20151
Summary: See PHI823. These got "visual-only" but should acutally get "aural => false" to pick up "aria-hidden".
Test Plan: Viewed page source, saw both "visual-only" and "aria-hidden".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20157
Summary:
Ref T13250. A handful of callsites are doing `getRequestURI()` + `setQueryParams(array())` to get a bare request path.
They can just use `getPath()` instead.
Test Plan: See inlines.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13250
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20150
Summary:
Ref T13244. See PHI1059. When you lock a task, users who can edit the task can currently override the lock by using "Edit Task" if they confirm that they want to do this.
Mark these edits with an emblem, similar to the "MFA" and "Silent" emblems, so it's clear that they may have bent the rules.
Also, make the "MFA" and "Silent" emblems more easily visible.
Test Plan:
Edited a locked task, overrode the lock, got marked for it.
{F6195005}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: aeiser
Maniphest Tasks: T13244
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20131
Summary:
Depends on D20115. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/transaction-search-endpoint-does-not-work-on-differential-diffs/2369/>.
Currently, `getApplicationTransactionCommentObject()` throws by default. Subclasses must override it to `return null` to indicate that they don't support comments.
This is silly, and leads to a bunch of code that does a `try / catch` around it, and at least some code (here, `transaction.search`) which doesn't `try / catch` and gets the wrong behavior as a result.
Just make it `return null` by default, meaning "no support for comments". Then remove the `try / catch` stuff and all the `return null` implementations.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `getApplicationTransactionCommentObject()`, fixed each callsite / definition.
- Called `transaction.search` on a diff with transactions (i.e., not a sourced-from-commit diff).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: jbrownEP
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20121
Summary: This seems generally reasonable, but is also a narrow fix to "Phacility scripts try to move instances into 'up', but the daemons can't MFA".
Test Plan: Launched a new instance locally, no more "daemons can't MFA" error.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20081
Summary: Ref T13242. Currently, the transaction query loads handles by default (this is unusual). We don't need them, so turn them off.
Test Plan: No apparent behavioral change, will compare production profiles.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13242
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20068
Summary:
Ref T12921. I'm moving Instances to modular transactions, and we have an "Alert" transaction type used to send notifications ("Your instance is going to be suspended for nonpayment.").
Currently, there's no way to specifically customize mail rendering under modular transactions. Add crude support for it.
Note that (per comment) this is fairly aspirational right now, since we actually always render everything as text (see T12921). But this API should (?) mostly survive intact when I fix this properly, and allows Instances to move to modular transactions so I can fix some more pressing issues in the meantime.
Test Plan: See next diff for Instances.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12921
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20057
Summary: This query didn't get updated and could let you through an explicit "Sign with MFA" action if you have only disabled factors on your account.
Test Plan:
- Disabled all factors.
- Used explicit "Sign With MFA".
- Before: Went through.
- After: Sensible error.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20072
Summary:
Depends on D20044. Ref T13242. Similar to D20044, add reminder text to edit forms.
It would be nice to "workflow" these so the MFA flow happens inline, but Maniphest's inline edit behavior currently conflicts with this. Set it aside for now since the next workboards iteration (triggers) is probably a good opportunity to revisit it.
Test Plan: {F6164496}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13242
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20045
Summary:
Ref T13242. Warn user that they'll need to MFA (so they can go dig their phone out of their bag first or whatever, or don't type a giant comment on mobile if their U2F key is back at the office) on the comment form.
Also, when they'll need MFA and won't be able to provide it (no MFA on account), stop them from typing up a big comment that they can't actually submit: point them at MFA setup first.
Test Plan:
{F6164448}
{F6164449}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13242
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20044
Summary:
Depends on D20040. Ref T13242. See PHI1039. See PHI873. Two reasonable cases have arisen recently where extending validation rules would help solve problems.
We can do this in a pretty straightforward way with a standard extension pattern.
Test Plan:
Used this extension to keep ducks away from projects:
```lang=php
<?php
final class NoDucksEditorExtension
extends PhabricatorEditorExtension {
const EXTENSIONKEY = 'no.ducks';
public function getExtensionName() {
return pht('No Ducks!');
}
public function supportsObject(
PhabricatorApplicationTransactionEditor $editor,
PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface $object) {
return ($object instanceof PhabricatorProject);
}
public function validateTransactions($object, array $xactions) {
$errors = array();
$name_type = PhabricatorProjectNameTransaction::TRANSACTIONTYPE;
$old_value = $object->getName();
foreach ($xactions as $xaction) {
if ($xaction->getTransactionType() !== $name_type) {
continue;
}
$new_value = $xaction->getNewValue();
if ($old_value === $new_value) {
continue;
}
if (preg_match('/duck/i', $new_value)) {
$errors[] = $this->newInvalidTransactionError(
$xaction,
pht('Project names must not contain the substring "duck".'));
}
}
return $errors;
}
}
```
{F6162585}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13242
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20041
Summary: Depends on D20038. Ref T13231. Although I planned to keep this out of the upstream (see T13229) it ended up having enough pieces that I imagine it may need more fixes/updates than we can reasonably manage by copy/pasting stuff around. Until T5055, we don't really have good tools for managing this. Make my life easier by just upstreaming this.
Test Plan: See T13231 for a bunch of workflow discussion.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13231
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20039
Summary:
Depends on D20035. Ref T13222.
- Allow individual transactions to request one-shot MFA if available.
- Make "change username" request MFA.
Test Plan:
- Renamed a user, got prompted for MFA, provided it.
- Saw that I no longer remain in high-security after performing the edit.
- Grepped for other uses of `PhabricatorUserUsernameTransaction`, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20036
Summary:
Depends on D20023. Ref T13222. Although I think this isn't strictly necessary from a pure security perspective (since you can't modify the primary number while you have MFA SMS), it seems like a generally good idea.
This adds a slightly new MFA mode, where we want MFA if it's available but don't strictly require it.
Test Plan: Disabled, enabled, primaried, unprimaried, and edited contact numbers. With MFA enabled, got prompted for MFA. With no MFA, no prompts.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20024
Summary:
Depends on D19988. See D19826 for the last UI expansion. I don't have an especially strong product rationale for un-fixed-width'ing Settings since it doesn't suffer from the "mystery meat actions" issues that other fixed-width UIs do, but I like the full-width UI better and the other other fixed-width UIs all (?) have some actual rationale (e.g., large tables, multiple actions on subpanels), so "consistency" is an argument here.
Also rename "account" to "language" since both settings are language-related.
This moves away from the direction in D18436.
Test Plan:
Clicked each Settings panel, saw sensible rendering at full-width.
{F6145944}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20005
Summary:
Fixes T13082. When you create a revision (say, `D111`) with `Ref T222` in the body, we write a `D111 -> T222` edge ("revision 111 references task 222") and an inverse `T222 -> D111` edge ("task 222 is referenced by revision 111").
We also apply a transaction to `D111` ("alice added a task: Txxx.") and an inverse transaction to `T222` ("alice added a revision: Dxxx").
Currently, it appears that the inverse transaction can sometimes generate mail faster than `D111` actually commits its (database) transactions, so the mail says "alice added a revision: Unknown Object (Differential Revision)". See T13082 for evidence that this is true, and a reproduction case.
To fix this, apply the inverse transaction (to `T222`) after we commit the main object (here, `D111`).
This is tricky because when we apply transactions, the transaction editor automatically "fixes" them to be consistent with the database state. For example, if a task already has title "XYZ" and you set the title to "XYZ" (same title), we just no-op the transaction.
It also fixes edge edits. The old sequence was:
- Open (database) transaction.
- Apply our transaction ("alice added a task").
- Apply the inverse transaction ("alice added a revision").
- Write the edges to the database.
- Commit (database) transaction.
Under this sequence, the inverse transaction was "correct" and didn't need to be fixed, so the fixing step didn't touch it.
The new sequence is:
- Open (database) transaction.
- Apply our transaction ("alice added a task").
- Write the edges.
- Commit (database) transaction.
- Apply the inverse transaction ("alice added a revision").
Since the inverse transaction now happens after the database edge write, the fixing step detects that it's a no-op and throws it away if we do this naively.
Instead, add some special cases around inverse edits to skip the correction/fixing logic, and just pass the "right" values in the first place.
Test Plan:
Added and removed related tasks from revisions, saw appropriate transactions render on both objects.
(It's hard to be certain this completely fixes the issue since it only happened occasionally in the first place, but we can see if it happens any more on `secure`.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13082, T222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19969
Summary:
Fixes T12921. Currently, we call `getTitleForHTMLMail()`, but that calls `getTitleForMail()` which forces us into text rendering mode.
Instead, have `getTitleForHTML/TextMail()` force the rendering mode, then call `getTitleForMail()` with the desired rendering mode.
This causes stories like "epriestely added dependent tasks: x, y." to appear as links in email instead of plain text.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ... --dump-html > out.html` to verify HTML mail.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12921
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19968
Summary:
See T1024. When "CAN_EDIT" became default in T13186, this was missed as an exception.
Watching shouldn't require "CAN_EDIT", so exempt it.
Test Plan:
- Before change: tried to watch a project I could not edit, got a policy error.
- After change: watched/unwatched a project I could not edit.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19977
Summary:
Ref T13222. In D19918, I refactored how timelines get "view data". Today, this is always additional data about which images/changesets/diffs are visible on the current revision/commit/mock, so we can tell if inline comments should be linked to a `#anchor` on the same page (if the inline is rendered there somewhere) or to a `/D123?id=1&vs=2` full link on a different page (if it isn't), but in general this could be any sort of state information about the current page that affects how the timeline should render.
Previously, comment previews did not use any specialized object code and always rendered a "generic" timeline story. This was actually a bug, but none of the code we have today cares about this (since it's all inline related, and inlines render separately) so it never impacted anything.
After the `TimelineEngine` change, the preview renders with Differential-specific code. This is more correct, but we were not passing the preview the "view data" so it broke.
This preview doesn't actually need the view data and we could just make it bail out if it isn't present, but pass it through for consistency and so this works like we'd expect if we do something fancier with view data in the future.
Test Plan: Viewed comment and inline comment previews in Differential, saw old behavior restored.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19943
Summary:
Depends on D19908. Ref T13222. In D19897, I reordered some transaction code and affected the call order of `willApplyTransactions()`.
It turns out that we use this call for only one thing, and that thing is pretty silly: naming the raw paste data file when editing paste content.
This is only user-visible in the URL when you click "View Raw Paste" and seems exceptionally low-value, so remove the hook and pick a consistent name for the paste datafiles. (We could retain the name behavior in other ways, but it hardly seems worthwhile.)
Test Plan:
- Created and edited a paste.
- Grepped for `willApplyTransactions()`.
Note that `EditEngine` (vs `ApplicationTransacitonEditor`) still has a `willApplyTransactions()`, which has one callsite in Phabricator (in Calendar) and a couple in Instances. That's untouched and still works.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19909
Summary:
Depends on D19900. Ref T13222. See PHI873. When an object requires MFA, we currently require MFA for every transaction.
This includes some ambiguous cases like "unsubscribe", but also includes "mention", which seems like clearly bad behavior.
Allow an "MFA" object to be the target of mentions, "edit child tasks", etc.
Test Plan:
- Mentioned an MFA object elsewhere (no MFA prompt).
- Made an MFA object a subtask of a non-MFA object (no MFA prompt).
- Tried to edit an MFA object normally (still got an MFA prompt).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19901
Summary:
Depends on D19898. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Allow objects to opt into an "MFA is required for all edits" mode.
Put tasks in this mode if they're in a status that specifies it is an `mfa` status.
This is still a little rough for now:
- There's no UI hint that you'll have to MFA. I'll likely add some hinting in a followup.
- All edits currently require MFA, even subscribe/unsubscribe. We could maybe relax this if it's an issue.
Test Plan:
- Edited an MFA-required object via comments, edit forms, and most/all of the extensions. These prompted for MFA, then worked correctly.
- Tried to edit via Conduit, failed with a reasonably comprehensible error.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19899
Summary:
Depends on D19896. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Add a core "Sign With MFA" transaction type which prompts you for MFA and marks your transactions as MFA'd.
This is a one-shot gate and does not keep you in MFA.
Test Plan:
- Used "Sign with MFA", got prompted for MFA, answered MFA, saw transactions apply with MFA metadata and markers.
- Tried to sign alone, got appropriate errors.
- Tried to sign no-op changes, got appropriate errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19897
Summary:
Depends on D19919. Ref T11351. This method appeared in D8802 (note that "get...Object" was renamed to "get...Transaction" there, so this method was actually "new" even though a method of the same name had existed before).
The goal at the time was to let Harbormaster post build results to Diffs and have them end up on Revisions, but this eventually got a better implementation (see below) where the Harbormaster-specific code can just specify a "publishable object" where build results should go.
The new `get...Object` semantics ultimately broke some stuff, and the actual implementation in Differential was removed in D10911, so this method hasn't really served a purpose since December 2014. I think that broke the Harbormaster thing by accident and we just lived with it for a bit, then Harbormaster got some more work and D17139 introduced "publishable" objects which was a better approach. This was later refined by D19281.
So: the original problem (sending build results to the right place) has a good solution now, this method hasn't done anything for 4 years, and it was probably a bad idea in the first place since it's pretty weird/surprising/fragile.
Note that `Comment` objects still have an unrelated method with the same name. In that case, the method ties the `Comment` storage object to the related `Transaction` storage object.
Test Plan: Grepped for `getApplicationTransactionObject`, verified that all remaining callsites are related to `Comment` objects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19920
Summary:
Depends on D19918. Ref T11351. In D19918, I removed all calls to this method. Now, remove all implementations.
All of these implementations just `return $timeline`, only the three sites in D19918 did anything interesting.
Test Plan: Used `grep willRenderTimeline` to find callsites, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19919
Summary:
Depends on D19914. Ref T11351. Some of the Phoilo rabbit holes go very deep.
`PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface` currently requires you to implement `willRenderTimeline()`. Almost every object just implements this as `return $timeline`; only Pholio, Diffusion, and Differential specialize it. In all cases, they are specializing it mostly to render inline comments.
The actual implementations are a bit of a weird mess and the way the data is threaded through the call stack is weird and not very modern.
Try to clean this up:
- Stop requiring `willRenderTimeline()` to be implemented.
- Stop requiring `getApplicationTransactionViewObject()` to be implemented (only the three above, plus Legalpad, implement this, and Legalpad's implementation is a no-op). These two methods are inherently pretty coupled for almost any reasonable thing you might want to do with the timeline.
- Simplify the handling of "renderdata" and call it "View Data". This is additional information about the current view of the transaction timeline that is required to render it correctly. This is only used in Differential, to decide if we can link an inline comment to an anchor on the same page or should link it to another page. We could perhaps do this on the client instead, but having this data doesn't seem inherently bad to me.
- If objects want to customize timeline rendering, they now implement `PhabricatorTimelineInterface` and provide a `TimelineEngine` which gets a nice formal stack.
This leaves a lot of empty `willRenderTimeline()` implementations hanging around. I'll remove these in the next change, it's just going to be deleting a couple dozen copies of an identical empty method implementation.
Test Plan:
- Viewed audits, revisions, and mocks with inline comments.
- Used "Show Older" to page a revision back in history (this is relevant for "View Data").
- Grepped for symbols: willRenderTimeline, getApplicationTransactionViewObject, Legalpad classes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19918
Summary:
Depends on D19861. Ref T13222. See PHI996. Fixes T10743. Currently, notifications only work if a story also has a feed rendering.
Separate "visible in feed" and "visible in notifications", and make notifications query only notifications and vice versa.
Then, set the test notification stories to be visible in notifications only, not feed.
This could be refined a bit (there's no way to have the two views render different values today, for example) but since the only actual use case we have right now is test notifications I don't want to go //too// crazy future-proofing it. I could imagine doing some more of this kind of stuff in Conpherence eventually, though, perhaps.
Test Plan: Sent myself test notifications, saw them appear on my profile timeline and in the JS popup, and in my notifications menu, but not in feed.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T10743
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19864
Summary:
Depends on D19860. Ref T13222. Ref T10743. See PHI996.
Long ago, there were different types of feed stories. Over time, there was less and less need for this, and nowadays basically everything is a "transaction" feed story. Each story renders differently, but they're fundamentally all about transactions.
The Notification test controller still uses a custom type of feed story to send notifications. Move away from this, and apply a transaction against the user instead. This has the same ultimate effect, but involves less weird custom code from ages long forgotten.
This doesn't fix the actual problem with these things showing up in feed. Currently, stories always use the same rendering for feed and notifications, and there need to be some additional changes to fix this. So no behavioral change yet, just slightly more reasonable code.
Test Plan: Clicked the button and got some test notifications, with Aphlict running.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T10743
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19861
Summary:
Depends on D19858. Ref T13222. See PHI995. In D19635 and related revisions, inline behavior changed to allow you to pre-mark your own inlines as done (as a reviewer) and to pre-mark your inlines for you (as an author).
These actions generate low-value stories in the timeline, like "alice marked 3 comments done." when an author adds some notes to their own revision. These aren't helpful and can be a little misleading.
Instead, just don't count it when someone marks their own inlines as "done". If we throw away all the marks after throwing away the self-marks, hide the whole story.
This happens in three cases:
# You comment on your own revision, and don't uncheck the "Done" checkbox.
# You comment on someone else's revision, and check the "Done" checkbox before submitting.
# You leave a not-"Done" inline on your own revision, then "Done" it later.
Cases (1) and (2) seem unambiguously good/clear. Case (3) is a little more questionable, but I think this still isn't very useful for reviewers.
If there's still a clarity issue around case (3), we could change the story text to "alice marked 3 inline comments by other users as done.", but I think this is probably needlessly verbose and that no one will be confused by the behavior as written here.
(Also note that this story is never shown in feed.)
Test Plan: Created and marked a bunch of inlines as "Done" in Differential and Diffusion, as the author and reviewer/auditor. My own marks didn't generate timeline stories; marking others' comments still does.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19859
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI995. Before making a change to inline rendering, consolidate this code for generating the "alice added inlines comments." and "alice marked X inlines as done." transactions.
Both Differential and Diffusion have four very similar chunks of code. Merge them into shared methods and reduce code duplication across the methods.
(In the next change, I plan to hide the "done" story when the mark affects your own inline, since users marking their own inlines as "done" is generally not very interesting or useful.)
Test Plan: As author and reviewer/auditor, added inlines in Differential and Diffusion. As author, marked own and others inlines as done and undone. Got sensible transaction rendering and persistence of "Done".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19858
Summary:
Ref T13222. Fixes T12588. See PHI683. In several cases, we present the user with a choice between multiple major options: Alamnac service types, Drydock blueprint types, Repository VCS types, Herald rule types, etc.
Today, we generally do this with radio buttons and a "Submit" button. This isn't terrible, but often it means users have to click twice (once on the radio; once on submit) when a single click would be sufficient. The radio click target can also be small.
In other cases, we have a container with a link and we'd like to link the entire container: notifications, the `/drydock/` console, etc. We'd like to just link the entire container, but this causes some problems:
- It's not legal to link block eleements like `<a><div> ... </div></a>` and some browsers actually get upset about it.
- We can `<a><span> ... </span></a>` instead, then turn the `<span>` into a block element with CSS -- and this sometimes works, but also has some drawbacks:
- It's not great to do that for screenreaders, since the readable text in the link isn't necessarily very meaningful.
- We can't have any other links inside the element (e.g., details or documentation).
- We can `<form><button> ... </button></form>` instead, but this has its own set of problems:
- You can't right-click to interact with a button in the same way you can with a link.
- Also not great for screenreaders.
Instead, try adding a `linked-container` behavior which just means "when users click this element, pretend they clicked the first link inside it".
This gives us natural HTML (real, legal HTML with actual `<a>` tags) and good screenreader behavior, but allows the effective link target to be visually larger than just the link.
If no issues crop up with this, I'd plan to eventually use this technique in more places (Repositories, Herald, Almanac, Drydock, Notifications menu, etc).
Test Plan:
{F6053035}
- Left-clicked and command-left-clicked the new JS fanciness, got sensible behaviors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19855
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. After D19853, "Create Subtask" may pop a dialog to let you choose between multiple forms.
Allow users to configure which forms are available by using `maniphest.subtypes` to choose available children for each subtype. Users may either specify particular subtypes or specific forms.
Test Plan: Configured "Quest" tasks to have "Objective" children, got appropriate prompt behavior. Used "subtypes" and "forms" to select forms; used "forms" to reorder forms.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19854
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. Currently, "Create Subtask" always uses the first edit form that the user has access to for the same task subtype. (For example, if you "Create Subtask" from a "Bug", you get the first edit form for "Bugs".)
I didn't want to go too crazy with the initial subtype implementation, but it seems like we're generally on firm ground and it's working fairly well: user requests are for more flexibility in using the system as implemented, not changes to the system or confusion/difficulty with any of the tradeoffs. Thus, I'm generally comfortable continuing to build it out in the same direction. To improve flexibility, I want to make the options from "Create Subtask" more flexible/configurable.
I plan to let you specify that a given subtype (say, "Quest") prompts you with creation options for a set of other subtypes (say, "Objective"), or prompts you with a particular set of forms.
If we end up with a single option, we just go into the current flow (directly to the edit form). If we end up with more than one option, we prompt the user to choose between them.
This change is a first step toward this:
- When building "Create Subtask", query for multiple forms.
- The default behavior is now "prompt user to choose among create forms of the same subtype". Previously, it was "use the first edit form of the same subtype". This is a behavioral change.
- The next change will make the selected forms configurable.
- (I also plan to make the dialog itself less rough.)
Test Plan: {F6051067}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19853
Summary: Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. To make "Create Subtask..." fancier, we need slightly more logic around subtype maps. Upgrade the plain old array into a proper object so it can have relevant methods, notably "get a list of valid child subtypes for some parent subtype".
Test Plan: Created and edited tasks, changed task subtypes. Grepped for affected symbols (`newEditEngineSubtypeMap`, `newSubtypeMap`).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19852
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI683. Currently, you can "Change subtype..." via Conduit and the bulk editor, but not via the comment action stack or edit forms.
In PHI683 an install is doing this often enough that they'd like it to become a first-class action. I've generally been cautious about pushing this action to become a first-class action (there are some inevitable rough edges and I don't want to add too much complexity if there isn't a use case for it) but since we have evidence that users would find it useful and nothing has exploded yet, I'm comfortable taking another step forward.
Currently, `EditEngine` has this sort of weird `setIsConduitOnly()` method. This actually means more like "this doesn't show up on forms". Make it better align with that. In particular, a "conduit only" field can already show up in the bulk editor, which is goofy. Change this to `setIsFormField()` and convert/simplify existing callsites.
Test Plan:
There are a lot of ways to reach EditEngine so this probably isn't entirely exhaustive, but I think I got pretty much anything which is likely to break:
- Searched for `setIsConduitOnly()` and `getIsConduitOnly()`, converted all callsites to `setIsFormField()`.
- Searched for `setIsLockable()`, `setIsReorderable()` and `setIsDefaultable()` and aligned these calls to intent where applicable.
- Created an Almanac binding.
- Edited an Almanac binding.
- Created an Almanac service.
- Edited an Almanac service.
- Edited a binding property.
- Deleted a binding property.
- Created and edited a badge.
- Awarded and revoked a badge.
- Created and edited an event.
- Made an event recurring.
- Created and edited a Conpherence thread.
- Edited and updated the diff for a revision.
- Created and edited a repository.
- Created and disabled repository URIs.
- Created and edited a blueprint.
- Created and edited tasks.
- Created a paste, edited/archived a paste.
- Created/edited/archived a package.
- Created/edited a project.
- Made comments.
- Moved tasks on workboards via comment action stack.
- Changed task subtype via comment action stack.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19842
Summary:
Ref T13216. See PHI970. Ref T13054. See some discussion in T13216.
When a Harbormaster Buildable object is first created for a Diff, it has no `containerPHID` since the revision has not yet been created.
We later (after creating a revision) send the Buildable a message telling it that we've added a container and it should re-link the container object.
Currently, we send this message in `applyExternalEffects()`, which runs inside the Differential transaction. If Harbormaster races quickly enough, it can read the `Diff` object before the transaction commits, and not see the container update.
Add a `didCommitTransaction()` callback after the transactions commit, then move the message code there instead.
Test Plan:
- See T13216 for substantial evidence that this change is on the right track.
- Before change: added `sleep(15)`, reproduced the issue reliably.
- After change: unable to reproduce issue even with `sleep(15)` (the `containerPHID` always populates correctly).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216, T13054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19807
Summary:
See PHI975. Ref T13216. Ref T2543. Previously, see D19204 and PHI433.
When you're acting on a draft revision, we change the button text to "Submit Quietly" as a hint that your actions don't generate notifications yet.
However, this isn't accurate when one of your actions is "Request Review", which causes the revision to publish.
Allow actions to override the submit button text, and make the "Request Review" action change the button text to "Publish Revision".
The alternative change I considered was to remove the word "Quietly" in all cases.
I'm not //thrilled// about how complex this change is to adjust one word, but the various pieces are all fairly clean individually. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to use it for anything else, but I do suspect that the word "Quietly" was the change in D19204 with the largest effect by far (see T10000).
Test Plan:
- Created a draft revision. Saw "Submit Quietly" text.
- Added a "Request Review" action, saw it change to "Publish Revision".
- Reloaded page, saw stack saved and "Publish Revision".
- Removed action, saw "Submit Quietly".
- Repeated on a non-draft revision, button stayed put as "Submit".
- Submitted the various actions, saw them have the desired effects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19810
Summary: Depends on D19785. Ref T13217. This converts many of the most common clause construction pathways to the new %Q / %LQ / %LO / %LA / %LJ semantics.
Test Plan: Browsed around a bunch, saw fewer warnings and no obvious behavioral errors. The transformations here are generally mechanical (although I did them by hand).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T13217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19789
Summary:
Depends on D19743. Ref T13210. Since this command can easily dump a bunch of binary data (or just a huge long blob of nonsense) to stdout, default to requiring "--output <file>".
Using `--output -` will print to stdout.
Test Plan: Ran with: no `--output`, `--output file`, `--output -`, `--output - --overwrite`. Got sensible results or errors in all cases.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13210
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19744
Summary: Depends on D19738. Ref T13210. Currently, when you use "--overwrite", we just //append// the new content. Instead, actually overwrite the file.
Test Plan: Used `--overwrite`, saw an actual clean overwrite instead of an append.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13210
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19739
Summary:
Ref T13210. Minor usability improvements to "bin/bulk export":
- Allow `--class task` to work (previously, only `--class ManiphestTaskSearchEngine` worked).
- If you run `--query jXIlzQyOYHPU`, don't require `--class`, since the query identifies the class on its own.
- Allow users to call `--query A --query B --query C` and get a union of all results.
Test Plan:
- Ran `--class task`, `--query A --query B`, `--query X` (with no `--class`), got good results.
- Ran various flavors of bad combinations (queries from different engines, invalid engines, query and class differing, ambiguous/invalid `--class` name) and got sensible errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13210
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19738
