Summary:
In ~2012, the first of these options was added because someone who hates dogs and works at Asana also hated `[Differential]` in the subject line. The use case there was actually //removing// the text, not changing it, but I made the prefix editable since it seemed like slightly less of a one-off.
These options are among the dumbest and most useless config options we have and very rarely used, see T11760. A very small number of instances have configured one of these options.
Newer applications stopped providing these options and no one has complained.
You can get the same effect with `translation.override`. Although I'm not sure we'll keep that around forever, it's a reasonable replacement today. I'll call out an example in the changelog to help installs that want to preserve this option.
If we did want to provide this, it should just be in {nav Applications > Settings} for each application, but I think it's wildly-low-value and "hack via translations" or "local patch" are entirely reasonable if you really want to change these strings.
Test Plan: Grepped for `subject-prefix`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19993
Summary:
Fixes T7477. Fixes T13066. Currently, inbound mail is processed by the first receiver that matches any "To:" address. "Cc" addresses are ignored.
**To, CC, and Multiple Receivers**
Some users would like to be able to "Cc" addresses like `bugs@` instead of having to "To" the address, which makes perfect sense. That's the driving use case behind T7477.
Since users can To/Cc multiple "create object" or "update object" addresses, I also wanted to make the behavior more general. For example, if you email `bugs@` and also `paste@`, your mail might reasonably make both a Task and a Paste. Is this useful? I'm not sure. But it seems like it's pretty clearly the best match for user intent, and the least-surprising behavior we can have. There's also no good rule for picking which address "wins" when two or more match -- we ended up with "address order", which is pretty arbitrary since "To" and "Cc" are not really ordered fields.
One part of this change is removing `phabricator.allow-email-users`. In practice, this option only controlled whether users were allowed to send mail to "Application Email" addresses with a configured default author, and it's unlikely that we'll expand it since I think the future of external/grey users is Nuance, not richer interaction with Maniphest/Differential/etc. Since this option only made "Default Author" work and "Default Author" is optional, we can simplify behavior by making the rule work like this:
- If an address specifies a default author, it allows public email.
- If an address does not, it doesn't.
That's basically how it worked already, except that you could intentionally "break" the behavior by not configuring `phabricator.allow-email-users`. This is a backwards compatility change with possible security implications (it might allow email in that was previously blocked by configuration) that I'll call out in the changelog, but I suspect that no installs are really impacted and this new behavior is generally more intuitive.
A somewhat related change here is that each receiver is allowed to react to each individual email address, instead of firing once. This allows you to configure `bugs-a@` and `bugs-b@` and CC them both and get two tasks. Useful? Maybe not, but seems like the best execution of intent.
**Sender vs Author**
Adjacently, T13066 described an improvement to error handling behavior here: we did not distinguish between "sender" (the user matching the email "From" address) and "actor" (the user we're actually acting as in the application). These are different when you're some internet rando and send to `bugs@`, which has a default author. Then the "sender" is `null` and the "author" is `@bugs-robot` or whatever (some user account you've configured).
This refines "Sender" vs "Author". This is mostly a purity/correctness change, but it means that we won't send random email error messages to `@bugs-robot`.
Since receivers are now allowed to process mail with no "sender" if they have some default "actor" they would rather use instead, it's not an error to send from an invalid address unless nothing processes the mail.
**Other**
This removes the "abundant receivers" error since this is no longer an error.
This always sets "external user" mail recipients to be unverified. As far as I can tell, there's no pathway by which we send them email anyway (before or after this change), although it's possible I'm missing something somewhere.
Test Plan:
I did most of this with `bin/mail receive-test`. I rigged the workflow slightly for some of it since it doesn't support multiple addresses or explicit "CC" and adding either would be a bit tricky.
These could also be tested with `scripts/mail/mail_handler.php`, but I don't currently have the MIME parser extension installed locally after a recent upgrade to Mojave and suspect T13232 makes it tricky to install.
- Ran unit tests, which provide significant coverage of this flow.
- Sent mail to multiple Maniphest application emails, got multiple tasks.
- Sent mail to a Maniphest and a Paste application email, got a task and a paste.
- Sent mail to a task.
- Saw original email recorded on tasks. This is a behavior particular to tasks.
- Sent mail to a paste.
- Sent mail to a mock.
- Sent mail to a Phame blog post.
- Sent mail to a Legalpad document.
- Sent mail to a Conpherence thread.
- Sent mail to a poll.
- This isn't every type of supported object but it's enough of them that I'm pretty confident I didn't break the whole flow.
- Sent mail to an object I could not view (got an error).
- As a non-user, sent mail to several "create an object..." addresses.
- Addresses with a default user worked (e.g., created a task).
- Addresses without a default user did not work.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13066, T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19952
Summary:
Ref T7477. The various "create a new X via email" applications (Paste, Differential, Maniphest, etc) all have a bunch of duplicate code.
The inheritance stack here is generally a little weird. Extend these from a shared parent to reduce the number of callsites I need to change when this API is adjusted for T7477.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests. This will get more thorough testing once more pieces are in place.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T7477
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19950
Summary:
Fixes T7199. This still isn't a shining example of perfect code, but the raw amount of copy/paste is much lower than it used to be.
- Reduce code duplication between existing receivers.
- Expose receiving objects in help menus where appropriate.
- Connect some "TODO" receivers.
Test Plan:
- Sent mail to every supported object type.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12249
Summary: Ref T7199. Everyone can have a mail command! You can have a mail command! You can have a mail command! Mail commands for everyone!
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to issue commands against files and pastes.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12238
Summary: Ref T7199. Half of these aren't even reachable, but make some progress toward reducing the amount of nonsense and garbage in mail handling.
Test Plan: Tested all reachable handlers with `bin/mail receive-test`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12237
Summary:
Ref T7199. This prepares for an exciting new world of more powerful "!action" commands. In particular:
- We parse multiple commands per mail.
- We parse command arguments (these are currently not used).
- We parse commands at the beginning or end of mail.
Additionally:
- Do a quick modernization pass on all handlers.
- Break legacy compatibility with really hacky Facebook stuff (see T1992). They've theoretically been on notice for a year and a half, and their setup relies on calling very old reply handler APIs directly.
- Some of these handlers had some copy/paste fluff.
- The Releeph handler is unreachable, but fix it //in theory//.
Test Plan:
- Sent mail to a file; used "!unsubscribe".
- Sent mail to a legalpad document; used "!unsubscribe".
- Sent mail to a task; used various "!close", "!claim", "!assign", etc.
- Sent mail to a paste.
- Sent mail to a revision; used various "!reject", "!claim", etc.
- Tried to send mail to a pull request but it's not actually reachable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12230
Summary:
Ref T7199. Although this is useful for discovery, it's un-useful enough that we already have an option to disable it, and most applications do not provide any meaningful instructions.
Throwing it away makes it easier to move forward and lets us get rid of a config option.
This is becoming a more advanced/power-user feature anyway, and the new syntax will be significantly more complex and hard to explain with a one-liner. I'm currently thinking that I'll maybe make the "help" menu a dropdown and give it some options like:
+---+
| O |
+---+---------------------+
| Maniphest Documentation |
| Maniphest Email Actions |
+-------------------------+
Then you click the "Email Actions" thing and get a runtime-derived list of available options. Not sure if I'll actually build that, but I think we can fairly throw the in-mail instructions away even if we don't go in that specific direction.
Test Plan: Grepped for `replyHandlerInstructions`, got no hits.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12229
Summary: Ref T7199. Guess no one has ever tried to reply to file mail.
Test Plan: Used `bin/mail receive-test` to send mail to files.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12228
Summary: Fixes T3404 (post D11565), fixes T5952. This infrastructure has been getting deployed against Maniphest and its time to get these other two applications going on it.
Test Plan: created an email address for paste and used `./bin/mail receive-test` ; a paste was successfully created
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5952, T3404
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11570
Summary: Ref T5655. Some discussion in D9839. Generally speaking, `Phabricator{$name}Application` is clearer than `PhabricatorApplication{$name}`.
Test Plan:
# Pinned and uninstalled some applications.
# Applied patch and performed migrations.
# Verified that the pinned applications were still pinned and that the uninstalled applications were still uninstalled.
# Performed a sanity check on the database contents.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9982
Summary: I'm pretty sure that `@group` annotations are useless now... see D9855. Also fixed various other minor issues.
Test Plan: Eye-ball it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley, chad
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9859
Summary:
also try to centralize some of the command parsing logic. note that differential is still an exception here. it uses a whitelist-style regex. i think long-term we should have this for every app but changing it seemed too big for this diff.
Fixes T3937.
Test Plan:
echo '!assign btrahan' | ./bin/mail receive-test --as xerxes --to T22 ; echo '!claim' | ./bin/mail receive-test --as xerxes --to T22
unit tests passed, though my new one is silly
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3937
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7307
Summary: this ends up being a little weird since you can't actually edit files. Also, since we create files all sorts of ways, sometimes without even having a user, we don't bother logging transactions for those events. Fixes T3651. Turns out this work is important for T3612, which is a priority of mine to help get Pholio out the door.
Test Plan: left a comment on a file. it worked! use bin/mail to verify mail content looked correct.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, aran, wez
Maniphest Tasks: T3651, T3612
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6789
Summary: Fixes T1144. Though actually I think T1144 wanted some handy way to email from the command-line / arc, this is cooler. :D
Test Plan: set conf properly and then ./bin/mail receive-test --as btrahan --to pasties@phabricator.dev | README --> it worked...! couldn't test files as easily but verified exception thrown when I tried to test.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T1144
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6622
