Summary:
When the user "Mrs. Kitten" adds or remove "Mrs. Kitten" as Subscriber,
usually these messages were generated:
Mrs. Kitten added a subscriber: Mrs. Kitten.
Mrs. Kitten removed a subscriber: Mrs. Kitten.
This was a bit like the Spiderman meme self-pointing Spiderman.
After this change, these beautiful messages are generated instead:
Mrs. Kitten subscribed.
Mrs. Kitten unsubscribed.
| Before | After |
| {F286215} | {F286216} |
Closes T15347
Test Plan:
- subscribe on something
- unsubscribe from something
- all other cases remain as-is
Reviewers: O1 Blessed Committers, bfs, speck
Reviewed By: O1 Blessed Committers, bfs, speck
Subscribers: bfs, speck, tobiaswiese, Matthew, Cigaryno
Maniphest Tasks: T15347
Differential Revision: https://we.phorge.it/D25191
Summary:
Fix a regression in this specific point:
phutil_nonempty_string(integer) called at [<phorge>/src/applications/transactions/storage/PhabricatorModularTransactionType.php:342]
This regression was causing a broken Almanac page and maybe others.
Note: The function phutil_nonempty_string() is well-known to be very angry and
throws for any alien value. This is by design, and in many cases
this is appropriate. But not here.
The business logic here handles very generic types like integers
and really probably whatever scalar value coming from an user input
and then normalized to something else, not necessarily a string, but definitely
something that can be cast to string.
If you have better ideas about how to handle these cases, please join T15190.
Closes T15385
Test Plan:
To test Almanac:
1. go to `/almanac/network/` and create at least one network (example: "foo")
2. go to `/almanac/device/` and create at least one device (example: "bar")
3. visit that Device
4. Add Interface
- test the creation of an empty Interface
- test the creation of a right Interface (example: Network "foo", Address 127.0.0.1, Port 80)
- nothing esplodes anymore
Reviewers: arnold, O1 Blessed Committers, avivey
Reviewed By: arnold, O1 Blessed Committers, avivey
Subscribers: avivey, speck, tobiaswiese, Matthew, Cigaryno
Maniphest Tasks: T15385
Differential Revision: https://we.phorge.it/D25220
Summary:
`strlen()` was used in Phabricator to check if a generic value is a non-empty string.
This behavior is deprecated since PHP 8.1. Phorge adopts `phutil_nonempty_string()` as a replacement.
Note: this may highlight other absurd input values that might be worth correcting
instead of just ignoring. If phutil_nonempty_string() throws an exception in your
instance, report it to Phorge to evaluate and fix that specific corner case.
Closes T15365
Test Plan: Applied this change and `/packages/package/edit/form/default/` and `/fund/create/` finally rendered in web browser, showing the expected error messages about not having entered any data in the creation page.
Reviewers: O1 Blessed Committers, valerio.bozzolan
Reviewed By: O1 Blessed Committers, valerio.bozzolan
Subscribers: speck, tobiaswiese, valerio.bozzolan, Matthew, Cigaryno
Maniphest Tasks: T15365
Differential Revision: https://we.phorge.it/D25202
Summary:
This small restyle makes any Removed Comment a little less
prominent than normal ones, with the goal of decreasing a
bit your in-page distractions and increase your individual
productivity in your business by at least 250 milliseconds
every 48 hours of hard work in front of your monitor.
| Before | After |
|---------------------|---------------------|
| {F274834,size=full} | {F274835,size=full} |
This implementation (which is called "Kasper on Diet")
contains these specific changes for Removed Comments:
- user icon visibility: reduced by ~50% (-> Kasper)
- black "trash" icon: reduced by ~50% (-> Diet)
- texts: visibility reduced by ~50%
- vertical padding: reduced from 16px down to 4px
Note that if your Phorge is under the Serious Business Mode,
it seems it is still technically possible to manually
activate the "Decaying Curse" proposal mentioned in the Task.
Closes T15192
Test Plan:
- Add a Comment "I love Phorge"
- Add a Comment "I love Phabricator"
- Mark the second Comment as Removed
- Call a person at your desk
- Plug that person to an eyeball tracker
If the general attention focuses first on a normal Comment and then
on the Removed Comment, this change works perfectly.
Reviewers: O1 Blessed Committers, Cigaryno, avivey
Reviewed By: O1 Blessed Committers, Cigaryno, avivey
Subscribers: speck, tobiaswiese, Matthew, Cigaryno
Tags: #comments
Maniphest Tasks: T15192
Differential Revision: https://we.phorge.it/D25096
Summary:
Ref T13682. Versioned drafts may have missing or unexpected metadata:
- versioned drafts from an older version of Phabricator may be missing metadata;
- versioned drafts created by an older UI against a newer version of Phabricator may have `null` metadata.
Generally, make these workflows robust to metadata in unexpected formats, so database debris doesn't break the UI.
Test Plan: Simulated debris, interacted with UI.
Maniphest Tasks: T13682
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21849
Summary: Ref T13682. Allow users to manually attach files which are referenced (but not attached) via the UI.
Test Plan: Reference files via `{F...}`, then attached them via the UI workflow.
Maniphest Tasks: T13682
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21837
Summary:
Ref T13603. On common edit pathways, extract explicit file attachments from Remarkup. These pathways are affected:
- Objects that use EditEngine and expose a remarkup area via "RemarkupEditField".
- Objects that use EditEngine to generate a comment area.
This is the vast majority of pathways, but not entirely exhaustive.
Test Plan: Created and commented on a task, explicitly attaching images. Saw images attach properly.
Maniphest Tasks: T13603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21830
Summary: Ref T13603. This adds a second write to new "attachment" storage to all writers except one in Paste, which creates the file inline.
Test Plan:
- Updated a macro image, confirmed a write to "attachment" storage (transaction pathway).
- Updated a blog profile image, confirmed a write to "attachment" storage (legacy pathway).
Maniphest Tasks: T13603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21816
Summary: Ref T13676. Ref T13588. Fix some issues that prevent "bin/phd" and "bin/drydock" from executing under PHP 8.1, broadly because `null` is being passed to `strlen()`.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/phd debug task` and `bin/drydock ...` under PHP 8.1.
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13676, T13588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21795
Summary: Ref T13588. This field may be "null" (and is probably never the empty string, but that's a more ambitious fix).
Test Plan: Ran unit tests, got a pass.
Maniphest Tasks: T13588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21752
Summary:
Ref T13661.
I'm fairly sure these policies don't actually do anything (you can't "interact" with a blog) but the primarily support a Phame Post object policy of "Same as Parent Blog", which is the "natural" interact policy for a post.
Most of this is infrastructure support for mutable interact policies: today, only Maniphest has interact mutability and only via indirect effects (locking tasks), not through a directly mutable "Can Interact" policy.
Test Plan:
Ran storage upgrade, edited interact policy of a blog, saw appropriate persistence and transactions.
Created and edited a task to make sure there's no weird fallout from increasing what can be done with interact policies.
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13661
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21751
Summary:
Ref T13620.
- Make generic edge stories render links with hovercards. Other story types (like subscriptions) already do this so I'm fairly certain this is just old code from before hovercards.
- Include a longer commit message snippet in hovercards.
Test Plan: {F8465645}
Maniphest Tasks: T13620
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21574
Summary:
Ref T13513. An inline is not considered empty if it has a suggestion, but some of the shared transaction code doesn't test for this properly.
Update the shared transaction code to be aware that application comments may have more complex emptiness rules.
Test Plan:
- Posted an inline with only an edit suggestion, comment went through.
- Tried to post a normal empty comment, got an appropriate warning.
Maniphest Tasks: T13513
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21287
Summary: Ref T13513. This slightly expands the existing-but-hacky "warning" workflow to cover both "mentions on draft" and "submitting inlines being edited".
Test Plan:
- Submitted changes to a revision with mentions on a draft, inlines being edited, both, and neither.
- Got sensible warnings in the cases where warnings were appropriate.
Maniphest Tasks: T13513
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21191
Summary:
Ref T13513. This is mostly an infrastructure cleanup change.
In a perfect world, this would be a series of several changes, but they're tightly interconnected and don't have an obvious clean, nontrivial partition (or, at least, I don't see one). Followup changes will exercise this code repeatedly and all of these individual mutations are "obviously good", so I'm not too worried about the breadth of this change.
---
Inline comments are stored as transaction comments in the `PhabricatorAuditTransactionComment` and `DifferentialTransactionComment` classes.
On top of these two storage classes sit `PhabricatorAuditInlineComment` and `DifferentialInlineComment`. Historically, these were an indirection layer over significantly different storage classes, but nowadays both storage classes look pretty similar and most of the logic is actually the same. Prior to this change, these two classes were about 80% copy/pastes of one another.
Part of the reason they're so copy/pastey is that they implement a parent `Interface`. They are the only classes which implement this interface, and the interface does not provide any correctness guarantees (the storage objects are not actually constrained by it).
To simplify this:
- Make `PhabricatorInlineCommentInterface` an abstract base class instead.
- Lift as much code out of the `Audit` and `Differential` subclasses as possible.
- Delete methods which no longer have callers, or have only trivial callers.
---
Inline comments have two `View` rendering classes, `DetailView` and `EditView`. They share very little code.
Partly, this is because `EditView` does not take an `$inline` object. Historically, it needed to be able to operate on inlines that did not have an ID yet, and even further back in history this was probably just an outgrowth of a simple `<form />`.
These classes can be significantly simplified by passing an `$inline` to the `EditView`, instead of individually setting all the properties on the `View` itself. This allows the `DetailView` and `EditView` classes to share a lot of code.
The `EditView` can not fully render its content. Move the content rendering code into the view.
---
Prior to this change, some operations need to work on inlines that don't have an inline ID yet (we assign an ID the first time you "Save" a comment). Since "editing" comments will now be saved, we can instead create a row immediately.
This means that all the inline code can always rely on having a valid ID to work with, even if that ID corresponds to an empty, draft, "isEditing" comment. This simplifies more code in `EditView` and allows the "create" and "reply" code to be merged in `PhabricatorInlineCommentController`.
---
Client-side inline events are currently handled through a mixture of `ChangesetList` listeners (good) and ad-hoc row-level listeners (less good). In particular, the "save", "cancel", and "undo" events are row-level. All other events are list-level.
Move all events to list-level. This is supported by all inlines now having an ID at all stages of their lifecycle.
This allows some of the client behavior to be simplified. It currently depends on binding complex ad-hoc dictionaries into event handlers in `_drawRows()`, but it seems like almost all of this code can be removed. In fact, no more than one row ever seems to be drawn, so this code can probably be simplified further.
---
Finally, save an "isEditing" state. When we rebuild a revision on the client, click the "edit" button if it's in this state. This is a little hacky, but simpler to get into a stable state, since the row layout of an inline depends on a "view row" followed by an "edit row".
Test Plan:
- Created comments on either side of a diff.
- Edited a comment, reloaded, saw edit stick.
- Saved comments, reloaded, saw save stick.
- Edited a comment, typed text, cancelled, "unedited" to get state back.
- Created a comment, typed text, cancelled, "unedited" to get state back.
- Deleted a comment, "undeleted" to get state back.
Weirdness / known issues:
- Drafts don't autosave yet.
- Fixed in D21187:
- When you create an empty comment then reload, you get an empty editor. This is a bit silly.
- "Cancel" does not save state, but should, once drafts autosave.
- Mostly fixed in D21188:
- "Editing" comments aren't handled specially by the overall submission flow.
- "Editing" comments submitted in that state try to edit themselves again on load, which doesn't work.
Subscribers: jmeador
Maniphest Tasks: T13513
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D21186
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:
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:
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 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:
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:
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:
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:
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 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 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:
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:
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:
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:
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 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 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:
Ref T13197. See PHI873. Record when a user has MFA'd and add a little icon to the transaction, similar to the exiting "Silent" icon.
For now, this just makes this stuff more auditable. Future changes may add ways to require MFA for certain specific transactions, outside of the ones that already always require MFA (like revealing credentials).
Test Plan: {F5877960}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19665
Summary:
Depends on D19585. Ref T13164.
Almost all transactions require CAN_EDIT on the object, but they generally do not enforce this directly today. Instead, this is effectively enforced by Controllers, API methods, and EditEngine doing a `CAN_EDIT` check when loading the object to be edited.
A small number of transactions do not require CAN_EDIT, and instead require only a weaker/lesser permission. These are:
- Joining a project which you have CAN_JOIN on.
- Leaving a project which isn't locked.
- Joining a Conpherence thread you can see (today, no separate CAN_JOIN permission for Conpherence).
- Leaving a Conpherence thread.
- Unsubscribing.
- Using the special `!history` command from email.
Additionally, these require CAN_INTERACT, which is weaker than CAN_EDIT:
- Adding comments.
- Subscribing.
- Awarding tokens.
Soon, I want to add "disabling users" to this list, so that you can disable users if you have "Can Disable User" permission, even if you can not otherwise edit users.
It's possible this list isn't exhaustive, so this change might break something by adding a policy check to a place where we previously didn't have one. If so, we can go weaken that policy check to the appropriate level.
Enforcement of these special cases is currently weird:
- We mostly don't actually enforce CAN_EDIT in the Editor; instead, it's enforced before you get to the editor (in EditEngine/Controllers).
- To apply a weaker requirement (like leaving comments or leaving a project), we let you get through the Controller without CAN_EDIT, then apply the weaker policy check in the Editor.
- Some transactions apply a confusing/redundant explicit CAN_EDIT policy check. These mostly got cleaned up in previous changes.
Instead, the new world order is:
- Every transaction has capability/policy requirements.
- The default is CAN_EDIT, but transactions can weaken this explicitly they want.
- So now we'll get requirements right in the Editor, even if Controllers or API endpoints make a mistake.
- And you don't have to copy/paste a bunch of code to say "yes, every transaction should require CAN_EDIT".
Test Plan:
- Tried to add members to a Conpherence thread I could not edit (permissions error).
- Left a Conpherence thread I could not edit (worked properly).
- Joined a thread I could see but could not edit (worked properly).
- Tried to join a thread I could not see (permissions error).
- Implemented `requireCapabilites()` on ManiphestTransactionEditor and tried to edit a task (upgrade guidance error).
- Mentioned an object I can not edit on another object (works).
- Mentioned another object on an object I can not edit (works).
- Added a `{F...}` reference to an object I can not edit (works).
- Awarded tokens to an object I can not edit (works).
- Subscribed/unsubscribed from an object I can not edit (works).
- Muted/unmuted an object I can not edit (works).
- Tried to do other types of edits to an object I can not edit (correctly results in a permissions error).
- Joined and left a project I can not edit (works).
- Tried to edit and add members to a project I can not edit (permissions error).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19586
