Summary:
Ref T13025. See PHI173. This supports the "Assign to" field in the new editor.
This is very slightly funky: to unassign tasks, you need to leave the field blank. I have half a diff to fix this, but the way the `none()` token works in the default datasource is odd so it needs a separate datasource. I'm punting on this for now since it works, at least, and isn't //completely// unreasonable.
This also simplifies some EditEngine stuff a little. Notably:
- I reorganized EditType construction slightly so subclasses can copy/paste a little bit less.
- EditType had `field` and `editField` properties which had the same values. I canonicalized on `editField` and made this value set a little more automatically.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to reassign some tasks. By leaving the field blank, unassigned tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18874
Summary: Depends on D18867. Ref T13025. Fixes T8740. Rebuilds the tag/subscriber actions (add, remove, set) into the bulk editor.
Test Plan: Added, removed and set these values via bulk edit.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T8740
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18868
Summary:
Depends on D18866. Ref T13025. Fixes T12415. This makes the old "Add Comment" action work, and adds support for a new "Set description to" action (possibly, I could imagine "append description" being useful some day, maybe).
The implementation is just a `<textarea />`, not a whole fancy remarkup box with `[Bold] [Italic] ...` buttons, preview, typeaheads, etc. It would be nice to enrich this eventually but doing the rendering in pure JS is currently very involved.
This requires a little bit of gymnastics to get the transaction populated properly, and adds some extra validation since we need some code there anyway.
Test Plan:
- Changed the description of a task via bulk editor.
- Added a comment to a task via bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T12415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18867
Summary: Depends on D18864. Ref T13025. Adds bulk edit support back for "status" and "priority" using `<select />` controls.
Test Plan:
Used bulk editor to change status and priority for tasks.
{F5374436}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18866
Summary:
Depends on D18862. See PHI173. Ref T13025. Fixes T10005. This redefines bulk edits in terms of EditEngine fields, rather than hard-coding the whole thing.
Only text fields -- and, specifically, only the "Title" field -- are supported after this change. Followup changes will add more bulk edit parameter types and broader field support.
However, the title field now works without any Maniphest-specific code, outside of the small amount of binding code in the `ManiphestBulkEditor` subclass.
Test Plan: Used the bulk edit workflow to change the titles of tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18863
Summary:
Depends on D18806. Ref T13025. See PHI173. Currently, Maniphest bulk edits are processed by a Maniphest-specific worker. I want to replace this with a generic worker which can apply transactional edits to any object.
This implements a generic worker, although it has no callers yet. Future changes give it callers, and later remove the Maniphest-specific worker.
Test Plan: See next changes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18862
Summary:
Depends on D18805. Ref T13025. Fixes T10268.
Instead of using a list of IDs for the bulk editor, power it with SearchEngine queries. This gives us the full power of SearchEngine and lets us use a query key instead of a list of 20,000 IDs to avoid issues with URL lengths.
Also, split it into a base `BulkEngine` and per-application subclasses. This moves us toward T10005 and universal support for bulk operations.
Also:
- Renames most of "batch" to "bulk": we're curently inconsitent about this, I like "bulk" better since I think it's more clear if you don't regularly interact with `.bat` files, and newer stuff mostly uses "bulk".
- When objects in the result set can't be edited because you don't have permission, show the status more clearly.
This probably breaks some stuff a bit since I refactored so heavily, but it seems mostly OK from poking around. I'll clean up anything I missed in followups to deal with remaining items on T13025.
Test Plan:
{F5302300}
- Bulk edited from Maniphest.
- Bulk edited from a workboard (no more giant `?ids=....` in the URL).
- Hit most of the error conditions, I think?
- Clicked the "Cancel" button.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10268
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18806
Summary:
Depends on D18845. See PHI243 for context and more details.
Briefly, some objects need a "type" transaction (or something similar) very early on, and we can't generate their fields until we know the object type. Drydock blueprints are an example: a blueprint's fields depend on the blueprint's type.
In web interfaces, the workflow just forces the user to select a type first. For Conduit workflows, I think the cleanest approach is to proactively extract and apply type information before processing the request. This will make the implementation a little messier, but the API cleaner.
An alternative is to add more fields to the API, like a "type" field. This makes the implementation cleaner, but the API messier. I think we're better off favoring a cleaner API here.
This change just makes it possible for `DrydockBlueprintEditEngine` to look at the incoming transactions and extract a "type"; it doesn't actually change any behavior.
Test Plan: Performed edits via API, but this change doesn't alter any behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18847
Summary:
Depends on D18851. Ref T13035. After D18819, revision creation transactions may be split into two groups (if prototypes are enabled).
This split means we have two workers. The first worker doesn't publish feed stories or mail; the second one does.
Currently, both workers call `shouldPublishFeedStory()` before they queue, and then again after the daemons pull them out of the queue. However, the answer to this question can change.
Specifically, this happens:
- `arc` creates a revision.
- The first transaction group applies, creating the revision as a draft, and returns `false` from `shouldPublishFeedStory()`, and does not generate related PHIDs. It queues a daemon to send mail, expecting it not to publish a feed story.
- The second transaction group applies, promoting the revision to "needs review". Since the revision has promoted, `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true. This editor generates related PHIDs and queues a daemon task, expecting it to send mail / publish feed.
- A few milliseconds pass.
- The first job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. It does not have any feed metadata because the object wasn't publishable when the job was queued -- but `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true, so it tries to publish a story without any metadata available. Slightly bad stuff happens (see below).
- The second job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. This one has metadata and works fine.
The "slightly bad stuff" is that we publish an empty feed story with no references to any objects, then try to push it to hooks and other listeners. Since it doesn't have any references, it fails to load during the "push to external listeners" phase.
This is harmless but clutters the log and doesn't help anything.
Instead, cache the state of "are we publishing a feed story for this object?" when we queue the worker so it can't race.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald triggers for Harbormaster build plans.
- Ran `bin/phd debug task` in one window.
- Created a revision in a separate window.
- Before patch: saw "unable to load feed story" errors in the daemon log.
- After patch: no more "unable to load feed story" errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18852
Summary:
Ref: https://admin.phacility.com/PHI243
Since our use case primarily focuses on transaction editing, this patch implements the `drydock.blueprint.edit` api method with the understanding that:
a) this is a work in progress
b) object editing is supported, but object creation is not yet implemented
Test Plan:
* updated existing blueprints via Conduit UI
* regression tested `maniphest.edit` by creating new and updating existing tasks
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, yelirekim, jcox
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18822
Summary:
Fixes T13027. Ref T2543. When revisions promote from "Draft" because builds finish or no builds are configured, the status currently switches from "Draft" to "Needs Review" without re-running Herald.
This means that some rules -- notably, "Send me an email" rules -- don't fire as soon as they should.
Instead of applying this promotion in a hacky way inline, queue it and apply it normally in a second edit, after the current group finishes.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision, reviewed Herald transcripts.
- Saw three Herald passes:
- First pass (revision creation) triggered builds and no email.
- Second pass (builds finished) did not trigger builds (no update) and did not trigger email (revision still a draft).
- Third pass (after promotion out of 'draft') did not trigger builds (no update) but did trigger email (revision no longer a draft).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13027, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18819
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/daemons-tasks-crashing-in-a-loop-during-reindex/506/1>. Some object types (for example, Passphrase Credentials) support indexing but not commenting.
Make `withComments(...)` work properly if the transaction type does not support comments.
Test Plan:
Indexed a credential (no comments) and a revision (comments) with `bin/search index --trace ...`.
Before, credential fataled.
After, credetial succeeds, and skips the transaction query.
Before and after, the revision queries the transaction table.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18667
Summary:
Ref T12997. Although we can't query by transaction type (since we can't easily enumerate all possible types which may have comments -- inline types may also have comments), we //can// just check if there's a comment row or not.
This reduces the amount of garbage we need to load to rebuild indexes for unusual objects with hundreds and hundreds of mentions.
Test Plan:
- Used batch editor to mention a task 700 times.
- Indexed it before and after this change, saw index time drop from {nav 1600ms > 160ms}.
- Made some new comments on it, verified that they still indexed/queried properly.
- Browsed around, made normal transactions, made inline comments.
- Added a unique word to an inline comment, indexed revision, searched for word, found revision.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12997
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18660
Summary:
Ref T2543. This doesn't stand alone since mail still goes out normally, but gets this piece working: new revisions start as "Draft", then after updates if there are no builds they go into "Needs Review".
This should work in general because builds update revisions when they complete, to publish a "Harbormaster finished build yada yada" transaction. So either we'll un-draft immediately, or un-draft after the last build finishes.
I'll hold this until the mail and some other stuff (like UI hints) are in slightly better shape since I think it's probably too rough on its own.
Test Plan: Created revisions locally, saw them un-draft after builds.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18628
Summary: This simplifies EditEngine pages in general by removing the dual header, and extending to allow setting of a custom PHUIHeaderView if needed (like settings).
Test Plan:
Review all settings pages, review task, project pages. This should all be fine, but is a big change maybe some layouts I'm not considering. Tested these all mobile, destkop as well.
{F5166181}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18527
Summary:
Ref T12819. Some of the extensions "enrich" the document (adding more fields or relationships), while others "index" it (insert it into some kind of index for later searching).
Currently, these are all muddled under a single "index" phase. However, the Ferret extension cares about fields and relationships which other extensions may add.
Split this into two phases: "enrich" adds fields and relationships so other extensions can read them later if they want. "Index" happens after the document is built and has all the fields and relationships.
The specific problem this solves is that comments may not have been added to the document when the Ferret extension runs. By moving them to the "enrich" phase, the Ferret engine will be able to see and index comments.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/search index ...`, grepped for `indexFulltextDocument`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12819
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18513
Summary:
Ref T2543. When called from the UI to build the dropdown, there's no Editor, since we aren't actually in an edit flow.
This logic worked for actually performing the edits, just not for getting the option into the dropdown.
Test Plan: Used the dropdown to close an "Accepted" revision which I authored.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18490
Summary:
Ref T5873. This provides paths and line numbers for inline comments.
This is a touch hacky but I was able to keep it mostly under control.
Test Plan:
- Made inline comments.
- Called API, got path/line information.
{F5120157}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18469
Summary: Minor cleanup, this logic can be simpler. Instead of special-casing inlines as having an effect if the have a comment, just consider any transaction with a comment to have an effect. I'm fairly certain this is always true.
Test Plan: Made inlines, tried to submit empty comments. Behavior unchanged.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18468
Summary:
Ref T5873. See PHI14. I don't want to just expose internal transaction data to Conduit by default, since it's often: unstable, unusable, sensitive, or some combination of the three.
Instead, let ModularTransactions opt in to providing additional data to Conduit, similar to other infrastructure. If a transaction doesn't, the API returns an empty skeleton for it. This is generally fine since most transactions have no real use cases, and I think we can fill them in as we go.
This also probably builds toward T5726, which would likely use the same format, and perhaps simply not publish stuff which did not opt in.
This doesn't actually cover "comment" or "inline comment", which are presumably what PHI14 is after, since neither is modular. I'll probably just put a hack in place for this until they can modularize since I suspect modularizing them here is difficult.
Test Plan: Ran `transaction.search` on a revision, saw some transactions (title and status transactions) populate with values.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18467
Summary:
Ref T5873. See PHI14. This does the basics that are shared across everything (IDs, PHIDs, dates, comments).
It doesn't do types (I think I don't necessarily want to expose internal types over the API?) or transaction-specific data.
In the next change, I'm going to add ways to let ModularTransactions "opt-in" to providing more data to Conduit. I'll use this to flesh out the actual desired transaction types (comments, presumably inline comments) and likely leave the rest as skeletons for now until use cases arise so we don't create a backward compatibility issue (or a security issue!) by exposing tons of internal stuff as public-facing API.
Test Plan:
Ran queries, used paging. Retrieved an edited, deleted, and normal comment.
{F5120060}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18466
Summary: Simplifies the page, adds base support for PHUITwoColumn fixed from Instances (which I'll delete css there).
Test Plan:
click on every settings page, UI seems in tact, check mobile, desktop, mobile menus.
{F5102572}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18436
Summary: Moves Settings to use a normal side navigation vs. a two column side navigation. It also updates Edit Engine to do the same, but I don't think there are other callsites. Added a consistent header for better clarification if you were editng your settings, global settings, or a bot's settings.
Test Plan: Test each page on a personal account, create global settings, test each page there, create a bot account, and test each page on the bot account. Anything else?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18342
Summary: Cursory research indicates that "login" is a noun, referring to a form, and "log in" is a verb, referring to the action of logging in. I went though every instances of 'login' I could find and tried to clarify all this language. Also, we have "Phabricator" on the registration for like 4-5 times, which is a bit verbose, so I tried to simplify that language as well.
Test Plan: Tested logging in and logging out. Pages feel simpler.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18322
Summary:
Ref T12124. After D18134 we accept either "25" or "low" via HTTP parameters and when the field renders as a control, but if the form has a default value for the field but locks or hides it we don't actually run through that logic.
Canonicalize both when rendering the control and when using a raw saved default value.
Test Plan:
- Created a form with "Priority: Low".
- Hid the "Priority" field.
- Before patch: Tried to create a task, was rebuffed with a (now verbose and helpful, after D18135) error.
- Applied patch: things worked.
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18142
Summary:
Ref T12124. This is a fairly narrow fix for existing saved EditEngine forms with a default priority value.
These saved forms have a numeric (or probably "string-numeric") default value, like "50". They lost their meaning after D18111, when "50" no longer appears in the dropdown. Instead, these forms all select the highest available priority.
At time of writing, this form was broken on this install, for example:
> https://secure.phabricator.com/transactions/editengine/maniphest.task/view/13/
Additionally, `/task/edit/form/123/?priority=...` (for templating forms) stopped working with `priority=50`. This isn't nearly as important, but a larger and more sudden compatiblity break than we need to make.
Add support for an "alias map" on `<select />` controls, so if the value comes in with something we don't recognize we'll treat it like some other value. Then alias all the numeric constants -- and other keywords -- to the right constants.
This ended up only affecting the `<select />` control in the web UI.
Test Plan:
- On `stable`, created a form with "Priority: Low".
- Before patch: form has "Priority: Unbreak Now!" on `master`.
- After patch: form has "Priority: Low" again.
- Used `?priority=25`, `?priority=wish`, `?priority=wishlist` to template forms: all forms worked.
Reviewers: amckinley, chad
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18134
Summary:
Ref T12314. Open to counterdiffs / iterating / suggestions / skipping most or all of this, mostly just throwing this out there as a maybe-reasonable first pass.
When a task has a subtype (like "Plant" or "Animal"), provide some hints on the task list, workboards, and task detail.
To make these hints more useful, allow subtypes to have icons and colors.
Also use these icons and colors in the typeahead tokens.
The current rule is that we show the subtype if it's not the default subtype. Another rule we could use is "show the subtype if there's more than one subtype defined", but my guess is that most installs will mostly have something like "normal task" as the default subtype.
Test Plan:
The interfaces this affects are: task detail view, task list view, workboard cards, subtype typeahead.
{F3539128}
{F3539144}
{F3539167}
{F3539185}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: johnny-bit, bbrdaric, benwick, fooishbar
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17451
Summary: Ref T12732. Use `renderValue()` to build `renderValueList()` so we get nice fancy text for these.
Test Plan: {F4967410}
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12732
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17966
Summary: Also changes access modifiers on `PhabricatorProjectTransactionEditor` and sets up `storage` for `applyExternalEffects`.
Test Plan: Created new projects, attempted to create without name, with too long of a name, and with a name that conflicts with other projects and observed expected errors.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T12673
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17947
Summary: Used by `PholioImageFileTransaction::mergeTransactions()`. I forgot to test adding multiple images to a Mock at the same time after migrating `mergeTransactions` over to the modular framework.
Test Plan: Added multiple images in a single transaction and didn't get an exception about accessing a protected function.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17946
Summary: Still needs some cleanup, but ready for review in broad outline form.
Test Plan:
Made lots of policy changes to the Badges application and confirmed expected rows in `application_xactions`, confirmed expected changes to `phabricator.application-settings`.
See example output (not quite working for custom policy objects) here:
{F4922240}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, chad, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T11476
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17757
Summary: See D17812, etc. We can figure this out by looking at the object carefully. We don't need to go delete all the old TYPE_COMMENT (it doesn't hurt anything) but can nuke it when we see it.
Test Plan:
- Made a comment in Slowvote (supports commenting).
- Viewed an Almanac device (does not support commenting).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17822
Summary: Moves participants over to ModularTransactions, simplified a lot of the code. Fixes T12550
Test Plan:
Create a new room with just myself and myself + fake accounts.
Remove a person.
Remove myself.
Edit a room, topic.
Type some messages.
???
Profit
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12550
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17685
Summary:
Fixes T12356.
- In this mail, we currently render "6:00 AM". Instead, render "6:00 AM (PDT)" or similar. This is consistent with times in other modern Transaction mail.
- Previously, we would render "UTC-7". Render "PDT" instead. For obscure zones with no known timezone abbreviation, fall back to "UTC-7".
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/calendar notify --minutes X` to trigger notifications, read email bodies.
- Used this script to list all `T` values and checked them for sanity:
```lang=php
<?php
$now = new DateTime();
$locales = DateTimeZone::listIdentifiers();
foreach ($locales as $locale) {
$zone = new DateTimeZone($locale);
$now->setTimeZone($zone);
printf(
"%s (%s)\n",
$locale,
$now->format('T'));
}
```
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12356
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17646
Summary:
Fixes T12502. This transaction probably should not be getting picked for feed rendering, but it currently does get selected in some cases.
This should probably be revisited eventually (e.g., when Maniphest moves to ModularTransactions) but just fix the brokenness for now.
Test Plan:
- Created a task in a space.
- Viewed feed.
- Saw the story render with readable text.
{F4555747}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12502
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17609
If we try to render an edge transaction which uses unknown edge constants,
it turns out we fatal. Degrade instead. This happened when viewing very old
badges.
Auditors: chad
Summary:
Fixes T12369. When you create objects they may technically be locked: either because the default state is legitimately locked, or because the default policies prevent you from viewing so we sort of technically end in a locked state.
Regardless, don't prompt during creation, since this prompt isn't useful even if the lock detection is completely legitimate.
Test Plan:
- In {nav Applications > Maniphest > Configure}, set "Default View Policy" to "No One".
- Tried to create a task.
- Before patch: prompted to override lock.
- After patch: no override prompt.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: d.maznekov
Maniphest Tasks: T12369
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17541
Summary:
Ref T12271. Currenty, when you "Accept" a revision, you always accept it for all reviewers you have authority over.
There are some situations where communication can be more clear if users can accept as only themselves, or for only some packages, etc. T12271 discusses some of these use cases in more depth.
Instead of making "Accept" a blanket action, default it to doing what it does now but let the user uncheck reviewers.
In cases where project/package reviewers aren't in use, this doesn't change anything.
For now, "reject" still acts the old way (reject everything). We could make that use checkboxes too, but I'm not sure there's as much of a use case for it, and I generally want users who are blocking stuff to have more direct accountability in a product sense.
Test Plan:
- Accepted normally.
- Accepted a subset.
- Tried to accept none.
- Tried to accept bogus reviewers.
- Accepted with myself not a reviewer
- Accepted with only one reviewer (just got normal "this will be accepted" text).
{F4251255}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17533
Summary: Fixes T12439. This pathway was just missing a `setContinueOnMissingFields(...)` to skip enforcement of required fields.
Test Plan:
- Added a required custom field.
- Mentioned any task without a field value in a comment.
- Edited that comment.
- Saved changes.
- Before fix: fatal in log.
- After fix: clean edit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12439
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17536
Summary: Fixes T12434. I accidentally copy/pasted this too much in D17442.
Test Plan: Viewed a form edit page, no longer saw two copies of this action.
Reviewers: chad, cspeckmim
Reviewed By: chad, cspeckmim
Maniphest Tasks: T12434
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17530
Summary: Ref T12270. Builds out a BadgeCache for PhabricatorUser, primarily for Timeline, potentially feed? This should still work if we later let people pick which two, just switch query in BadgeCache.
Test Plan: Give out badges, test timeline for displaying badges from handles and without queries. Revoke a badge, see cache change.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12270
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17503
Summary: Fixes T12398. This adds `withBadgeStatuses` as a query parameter when searching for Awards to show. In most (all?) cases we currently only show active badges.
Test Plan: Assign myself a badge, archive it and verify it does not appear on profile, comment form, or timeline.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17499
Summary: Fixes T10698. This shows badges under the comment preview if the application uses TransactionCommentView. I suspect not everything does, but will pick the fix up for free when modernized.
Test Plan: Test commenting on a task with and without a user that has a badge. See badge preview.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10698
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17480
Summary:
Ref T12337. Ref T5873. This provides a generic "edge.search" method which feels like other "verison 3" `*.search` methods.
The major issues here are:
1. Edges use constants internally, which aren't great for an API.
2. A lot of edges are internal and probably not useful to query.
3. Edges don't have a real "id", so paginating them properly is challenging.
I've solved these things like this:
- Edges must opt-in to being available via Conduit by providing a human-readable key (like "mention" instead of "52"). This solvs (1) and (2).
- I faked a mostly-reasonable behavior for paginating.
Test Plan:
Ran various valid and invalid searches. Paginated a large search. Reviewed UI.
{F3651818}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12337, T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17462
Summary: Fixes T12347. Ref T12314. Validation gets called no matter what, but is only relevant if the form supports subtypes.
Test Plan: Marked/unmarked a Paste form as editable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12347, T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17457
Summary:
Ref T12335. See that task for discussion. Here are the behavioral changes:
- Statuses can be flagged with `locked`, which means that tasks in that status are locked to further discussion and interaction.
- A new "CAN_INTERACT" permission facilitates this. For most objects, "CAN_INTERACT" is just the same as "CAN_VIEW".
- For tasks, "CAN_INTERACT" is everyone if the status is a normal status, and no one if the status is a locked status.
- If a user doesn't have "Interact" permission:
- They can not submit the comment form.
- The comment form is replaced with text indicating "This thing is locked.".
- The "Edit" workflow prompts them.
This is a mixture of advisory and hard policy checks but sholuld represent a reasonable starting point.
Test Plan: Created a new "Locked" status, locked a task. Couldn't comment, saw lock warning, saw lock prompt on edit. Unlocked a task.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17453
Summary:
Ref T12335. Fixes T11207. Edit-like interactions which are not performed via "Edit <object>" are a bit of a grey area, policy-wise.
For example, you can correctly do these things to an object you can't edit:
- Comment on it.
- Award tokens.
- Subscribe or unsubscribe.
- Subscribe other users by mentioning them.
- Perform review.
- Perform audit.
- (Maybe some other stuff.)
These behaviors are all desirable and correct. But, particularly now that we offer stacked actions, you can do a bunch of other stuff which you shouldn't really be able to, like changing the status and priority of tasks you can't edit, as long as you submit the change via the comment form.
(Before the advent of stacked actions there were fewer things you could do via the comment form, and more of them were very "grey area", especially since "Change Subscribers" was just "Add Subscribers", which you can do via mentions.)
This isn't too much of a problem in practice because we won't //show// you those actions if the edit form you'd end up on doesn't have those fields. So on intalls like ours where we've created simple + advanced flows, users who shouldn't be changing task priorities generally don't see an option to do so, even though they technically could if they mucked with the HTML.
Change this behavior to be more strict: unless an action explicitly says that it doesn't need edit permission (comment, review, audit) don't show it to users who don't have edit permission and don't let them take the action.
Test Plan:
- As a user who could not edit a task, tried to change status via comment form; received policy exception.
- As a user who could not edit a task, viewed a comment form: no actions available (just "comment").
- As a user who could not edit a revision, viewed a revision form: only "review" actions available (accept, resign, etc).
- Viewed a commit form but these are kind of moot because there's no separate edit permission.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335, T11207
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17452
Summary:
Ref T12314. Ref T6064. Ref T11580. If an install defines several different task create forms (like "Create Plant" and "Create Animal"), allow any of them to be created directly onto a workboard column.
This is just a general consistency improvement that makes Custom Forms and Workboards work together a bit better. We might do something fancier eventually for T6064 (which wants fewer clicks) and/or T11580 (which wants per-workboard control over forms or defaults).
Test Plan:
- Created several different types of tasks directly onto a workboard.
- Faked just one create form, saw the UI unchanged (except that it respects any renaming).
{F3492928}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314, T11580, T6064
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17446
