Summary:
Ref T6027. We currently have two different transaction types:
- `TYPE_PROJECT_COLUMNS` does most of the work, but has a sort of weird structure and isn't really suitable for API use.
- `TYPE_COLUMN` is this weird, junk transaction which mostly just creates the other transaction.
Merge them into a single higher-level `TYPE_COLUMNS` transaction which works properly and has a sensible structure and comprehensive error checking.
Remaining work here:
- I've removed the old rendering logic, but not yet added new logic. I need to migrate the old transaction types and add new rendering logic.
- Although the internal representation is now //suitable// for use in the API, it isn't properly exposed yet.
Test Plan:
- Created tasks into a column.
- Ran unit tests.
- Moved tasks between columns.
- Will perform additional testing in followups.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6027
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15634
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:
Ref T10349. Columns have the same policies as the projects they belong to.
However, the current implementation just returns the policy directly. This usually works, but if the project has a policy like "Members of (This) Project", the policy filter tries to check if the viewer is a member of //the column itself//. That doesn't work, since columns don't have members. This leads to a situation where columns on "Editable By: Project Members" projects can not be edited.
Instead, return a permissive base policy and then use an extended policy to bind the column policy to the project policy.
Test Plan:
- Edited a column on an "Editable By: Members of Project" board.
- Added and ran a unit test covering this case.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10349
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15268
Summary:
Ref T10010. These aren't perfect but I think (?) they aren't horribly broken.
- When a project is a parent project, destroy (as far as the user can tell) any custom columns.
- When a project has milestones, automatically generate columns on the project's workboard (if it has a workboard).
- When you move tasks between milestones, add the proper milestone tag.
- When you move tasks out of milestones back into the backlog, add the proper parent project tag.
- (Plenty of UI / design stuff to adjust.)
Test Plan:
- Dragged stuff between milestone columns.
- Used a normal workboard.
- Wasn't able to find any egregiously bad cases that did anything terrible.
{F1088224}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15171
Summary: Ref T10010. This isn't totally comprehensive, and a lot of behaviors aren't testable (e.g., all the Javascript stuff) but at least covers the basic create/move/reorder operations.
Test Plan: `arc unit`
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15178
Summary:
Ref T10010. When you try to add "Sprint 35" to a task, remove "Sprint 34", etc. Briefly:
- A task can't be in Sprint 3 and Sprint 4.
- A task can't be in "A" and "A > B" (but "A > B" and "A > C" are fine).
- When a user makes an edit which would violate one of these rules, preserve the last tag in each group of conflicts.
Test Plan:
- Added fairly comprehensive tests.
- Added a bunch of different tags to things, saw them properly exclude conflicting tags.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15167
Summary: Ref T10010. Fixes T10107. When we publish a transaction about a project, we perform visibility checks for many different users. We need to know all of the ancestors' members to perform these checks.
Test Plan:
- Before patch: when updating a subproject, daemons fatal trying to publish things because they can not test visibility of parent projects.
- After patch: daemons successfully publish subproject updates.
- Also added a unit test.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010, T10107
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15054
Summary:
Ref T10010. I think this is the desired/expected default behavior (e.g., searching for "Maniphest" should find tasks in any subproject or sprint of that project).
I'll probably add an "exact(...)" function later to mean "only the Maniphest superproject, exactly, not any of its children".
Test Plan:
- Added and executed unit tests.
- Ran various queries from the web UI.
- Got sensible-seeming results.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14910
Summary:
Ref T10010. This has a lot of UI/UX problems but I think it:
- technically allows subproject creation;
- technically allows milestone creation;
- doesn't let users unwittingly destroy their installs (probably).
Test Plan:
- Created milestones.
- Created subprojects.
- Created and edited normal projects.
- Observed some reasonable interactions (e.g., you can't create milestones for a milestone or edit a superproject's members).
- Observed plenty of silly/confusing interactions that need additional work.
{F1046657}
{F1046658}
{F1046655}
{F1046656}
{F1046654}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14904
Summary:
Ref T10010. We currently require `withSlugs()` to have properly formatted slugs, but this leads to similar code in several places.
Instead: accept any slug, normalize slugs in the query, return a map so callers can figure out what happened if they want.
This tends to do the right thing by default, while keeping enough information around to do more complex things if necessary. A similar approach for querying commits has worked well in Diffusion.
Test Plan: Added and executed unit tests.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14888
Summary:
Fixes T9019. Pretty much ripped from D14467. I added the "policy hint" stuff so that you can create a project with this policy immediately.
I really dislike how the "hint" code works, but we //almost// never need to use it and the badness feels fairly well-contained.
Also pick up a quick feedback fix from D14863.
Test Plan:
- Added test coverage, got it to pass.
- Created a project with "Visible To: Project Members".
Reviewers: joshuaspence, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9019
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14869
Summary: Ref T8509. We currently give you a fairly obtuse error when trying to name a project something like "!!". The error is correct, but not as helpful as it could be. Give users a more specific, more helpful error.
Test Plan: {F1042883}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14872
Summary:
Fixes T8509. Changes these behaviors:
- If you create a project named "QQQ" and add "qqq" as a hashtag at the same time, it fails in an unhelpful way. (Now: succeeds.)
- If you add "qqq" as a hashtag to a project with primary hashtag "qqq", it fails in a correct but probably unnecessary way (Now: just works).
We could make one or both of these behaviors show the user an error instead, but I think it's likely that this behavior is just what they always want.
Test Plan:
- Added failing tests and made them pass.
- Executed both scenarios described above from the web UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14871
Summary:
Ref T8509. This fixes three issues:
- Adding a slug like `UPPERCASE` would not give you a normalized slug. (Now: normalizes as `uppercase`.)
- Adding a slug like `UPPERCASE` would allow you to give two different projects the different tags `UPPERCASE` and `uppercase` (and `UpPeRcAsE`, etc). (Now: second tag is rejected as a duplicate.)
- Adding multiple identical or similar slugs would produce a duplicate key exception. (Now: ignores the duplicates.)
Test Plan:
- Added test coverage.
- Made tests pass.
- Hit these cases in the UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14870
Summary:
Ref T10010. Subprojects have the following general membership rule: if you are a member of a subproject ("Engineering > Backend"), you are also a member of the parent project.
It would be unreasonably difficult to implement this rule directly in SQL when querying `withMemberPHIDs()`, because we'd have to do an arbitrarily large number of arbitrarily deep joins, or fetch and then requery a lot of data.
Instead, introduce "materailized members", which are just a copy of all the effective members of a project. When a subproject has a membership change, we go recompute the effective membership of all the parent projects. Then we can just JOIN to satisfy `withMemberPHIDs()`.
Having this process avialable will also be useful in the future, when a project's membership might be defined by some external source.
Also make milestones mostly work like we'd expect them to with respect to membership and visibility.
Test Plan:
- Added and executed unit tests.
- Changed project members, verified materialized members populated correctly in the database.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14863
Summary:
Ref T10010. This adds infrastructure for querying projects by type, depth, parent and ancestor.
I needed to revise the "extended policy check" cycle detection rules. When, e.g., querying a grandchild, they incorrectly detected a cycle because both the child and grandchild needed to check the policy of the grandparent.
Instead, simplify it to just do a basic runaway calldepth check. There are many other safety mechanisms to make it so this can't ever occur.
(Cycle detection does have existing test coverage, and those tests still pass, it just takes a little longer to detect the cycle internally.)
There is still no way to create subprojects in the UI.
Test Plan: Added and executed unit tests.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14862
Summary:
Ref T10010. This implements technical groundwork for subprojects. Specifically, it implements policy rules like Phriction:
- to see a project, you must be able to see all of its parents (and the project itself).
- you can edit a project if you can edit any of its parents (or the project itself).
To facilitiate this, we load all project ancestors when querying projects so we can do the view/edit checks.
This does NOT yet implement:
- proper membership rules for these projects (up next);
- any kind of UI to let users create subprojects.
Test Plan:
- Added unit tests.
- Executed unit tests.
- Browsed Projects (no change in behavior is expected).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14861
Summary:
Ref T10010. Currently, we do an unusual JOIN to make testing for viewer membership in projects a little cheaper.
This won't work as-is once we have subprojects, so standardize, simplify, and cover it with more tests for now. (I may be able to get a similar optimization later, but want a correct implementation first.)
Test Plan:
This change should create no behavioral differences.
- Added tests.
- Ran tests.
- Viewed projects.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14859
