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:
Ref T10537. For Nuance, I want to introduce new sources (like "GitHub" or "GitHub via Nuance" or something) but this needs to modularize eventually.
Split ContentSource apart so applications can add new content sources.
Test Plan:
This change has huge surface area, so I'll hold it until post-release. I think it's fairly safe (and if it does break anything, the breaks should be fatals, not anything subtle or difficult to fix), there's just no reason not to hold it for a few hours.
- Viewed new module page.
- Grepped for all removed functions/constants.
- Viewed some transactions.
- Hovered over timestamps to get content source details.
- Added a comment via Conduit.
- Added a comment via web.
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade --namespace XXXXX --no-quickstart -f` to re-run all historic migrations.
- Generated some objects with `bin/lipsum`.
- Ran a bulk job on some tasks.
- Ran unit tests.
{F1190182}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10537
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15521
Summary: Modernize Differential edges to subclass `PhabricatorEdgeType`. Largely based on D11045.
Test Plan: From previous experience, these changes are fairly trivial and safe. I poked around a little to make sure things looked reasonably okay.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, Krenair, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11074
Summary: Ref T5655. Rename `PhabricatorPHIDType` subclasses for clarity (see discussion in D9839). I'm not too keen on some of the resulting class names, so feel free to suggest alternatives.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9986
Summary:
Ref T2222. This is the big one.
This migrates each `DifferentialComment` to one or more ApplicationTransactions (action, cc, reviewers, update, comment, inlines), and makes `DifferentialComment` a double-reader for ApplicationTransactions.
The migration is pretty straightforward:
- If a comment took an action not otherwise covered, it gets an "action" transaction. This is something like "epriestley abandoned this revision.".
- If a comment updated the diff, it gets an "updated diff" transaction. Very old transactions of this type may not have a diff ID (probably only at Facebook).
- If a comment added or removed reviewers, it gets a "changed reviewers" transaction.
- If a comment added CCs, it gets a "subscribers" transaction.
- If a comment added comment text, it gets a "comment" transaction.
- For each inline attached to a comment, we generate an "inline" transaction.
Most comments generate a small number of transactions, but a few generate a significant number.
At HEAD, the code is basically already doing this, so comments in the last day or two already obey these rules, roughly, and will all generate only one transaction (except inlines).
Because we've already preallocated PHIDs in the comment text table, we only need to write to the transaction table.
NOTE: This significantly degrades Differential, making inline comments pretty much useless (they each get their own transaction, and don't show line numbers or files). The data is all fine, but the UI is garbage now. This needs to be fixed before we can deploy this to users, but it's easily separable since it's all just display code.
Specifically, they look like this:
{F112270}
Test Plan:
I've migrated locally and put things through their paces, but it's hard to catch sketchy stuff locally because most of my test data is nonsense and bad migrations wouldn't necessarily look out of place.
IMPORTANT: I'm planning to push this to a branch and then shift production over to the branch, and run it for a day or two before bringing it to master.
I generally feel good about this change: it's not that big since we were able to separate a lot of pieces out of it, and it's pretty straightforward. That said, it's still one of the most scary/dangerous changes we've ever made.
Reviewers: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8210
