Summary: We probably can't land this yet, since `arc tasks` still uses `maniphest.find` and `arc close` still uses `differential.getrevision`. We should clean those up and wait at least 30 days before committing this (maybe).
Test Plan: Saw setup issues for `maniphest.find` and `differential.getrevision` calls.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, joshuaspence, FacebookPOC, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6333
Summary: Ref T7094. We already had and were mostly using "needProfileImage" on the people query class. Only real trick in this diff is deleting a conduit end point that has been marked deprecated for the better part of 3 years.
Test Plan: clicked around the people action and profiles and calendars loaded nicely.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11630
Summary: Not too shabby - just convert some raw queries to the policy queries. Ref T7094.
Test Plan: NA 'cuz releeph
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11591
Summary: Ref T7094. This one is really straight-forward since $this->actor is always populated and the right thing to do here.
Test Plan: used the ole thinking noodle since testing email w/ attachments is really hard
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11589
Summary: Ref T7094. This loadRepository() method bypassed policy unnecessarily. kill it.
Test Plan: basically un-tested since arcanist projects are deprecated and the main callsites were in releeph. conduit end point still works though!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11586
Summary: Revamps Profile to be like Projects, a mini portal and side nav with icons.
Test Plan: Viewed my own profile, as well as others. Test seeing my commits, tasks, diffs, and upcoming events. Checked mobile navigation.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11547
Summary: Use `PhutilXHPASTBinary` methods instead of `xhpast_parse` functions. Depends on D11517.
Test Plan: N/A, this is a direct swap.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11612
Summary: Before the redesign, these levels were hidden. This recreates that behavior.
Test Plan:
Test nested Phriction pages
{F281114}
{F281115}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11621
Summary: This sets an icon for each config, makes it easier to scan.
Test Plan:
Reload Config page, see all new icons
{F281089}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11619
Summary: Right now you have to know to setFlush on an ObjectBox preceding a timeline, we can make that automatic with CSS.
Test Plan: Test some Diffusion commit pages, boxes now site flush under timeline. Check Maniphest and Differential, no changes.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11617
Summary: Increase the CSS specificity on mobile so correct styles are applied.
Test Plan: Test a Maniphest Task
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11618
Summary: Clean up the error view styling.
Test Plan:
Tested as many as I could find, built additional tests in UIExamples
{F280452}
{F280453}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: hach-que, Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11605
Summary: These should be consistent with ObjectBox headers.
Test Plan: Review a Phriction document
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11607
Summary: Debugging crumbs in repository editing, and it seems there are stray divs that aren't used from extending AphrontTagView. I don't see any specific reason this needs to be from AphrontTagView, so changing it. Of course I'm not sure this is correct, so feel free to reject if I'm missing some obvious or non-obvious reasons.
Test Plan: Review editing a repositor, don't see extra div.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11608
Summary: Ref T6881. This won't do much of interest on third party installs yet, but it's stable and we don't need to hold it back any longer.
Test Plan: Ran `phd start`, saw the trigger daemon start up.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11603
Summary: Ref T6881. If we can't automatically bill an invoice, send the account owners a mail explaining why and asking them to pay it.
Test Plan: {F279596}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11602
Summary:
Ref T6881.
- Fix dead links.
- Let implementations provide more information.
- Provide more information to implementations.
Test Plan: Links work, invoices show billing periods, fewer "Subscription 6" crumbs, all is well in the world.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11601
Summary:
Ref T6881.
- Allow users to set a default payment method for a subscription, which we'll try to autobill (not all payment methods are autobillable, so we can't require this in the general case, and a charge might fail anyway).
- If a subscription has an autopay method, try to automatically bill it.
- Otherwise, we'll send them an email like "hey here's a bill, it couldn't autopay for some reasons, go pay it and fix those if you want".
- (That email doesn't exist yet but there's a comment about it.)
- Also some UI cleanup.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/phortune invoice` to autobill myself some fake test money.
{F279416}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11596
Summary: Self-explanatory. Also made a few methods `final`.
Test Plan: Eyeball it.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11598
Summary: Ref T7094. The class DiffusionRequest has other public methods which use getUser() in an unguarded way. Code inspection of the call sites for loadCommit() also leads me to believe the $user is properly set.
Test Plan: clicked around diffusion a bunch and everything seemed to work okay. (happy to test any particular esoteric endpoints that come to mind)
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11585
Summary:
Ref T6881. This is basically just some UX.
Right now, if we invoice you, you can //technically// pay it but since we don't tell you about it and don't show it in the UI you'd have to guess the ID by manipulating the URI. We should probably be at least a little more aggressive about billing.
In the common case when we generate a cart/order, we don't show it to the user or merchant in Phortune until the user takes a payment action (basically, Phortune doesn't recognize the cart until you actually check out with it). In the current use case in Fund (and other reasonable use cases) an un-acted-upon cart hasn't been ordered yet, and is just a place for the application to store state as it hands off the workflow to Phortune.
Even if we had a real "Shop for physical goods" app, I think the same rule would apply -- the application itself would probably track and show your current cart, but it wouldn't make sense to put it into your order history in Phortune until you actually buy it.
Since invoices from subscriptions are essentially identical to not-yet-ordered-carts, that mean they also did not show up in the UI (although I think this is also desirable).
This change carves out a place for them:
- Add an "invoices" section with unpaid invoices.
- The UI shows that you have unpaid invoices.
- Invoices have a slightly different rendering, inclduing an alluring "Pay Now" button.
Some considerations:
- One thing I'm vaguely thinking about is the possibilty that users may be able to invoice one another directly, eventually. For example, we might invoice a contracting client.
- Considering this, I thought about making these carts have a special status like `STATUS_DUE`, which replaces `STATUS_READY`, or a flag like `isInvoice`.
- However, this approach was pretty involved and made the //billing// logic more complicated, so I backed off. The ultimate approach here puts more of the complexity into the display logic, which feels better to me.
- We might need an `isInvoice` flag eventually, but `subscriptionPHID` is a reasonable stand-in for now.
- The OrderTable serving double duty for rendering subscriptions feels a little muddy, but I think splitting it into two highly-redundant classes would be worse.
Test Plan:
{F279348}
{F279349}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11593
Summary: The method is actually named `DivinerAtomRef::newFromDictionary`.
Test Plan: `./bin/diviner generate --publisher DivinerStaticPublisher` worked a bit better.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11590
Summary: Allow the `DivinerPublisher` subclass to be specified via `./bin/divner generate --publisher ...`. In particular, this allows use of the (mostly broken) `DivinerStaticPublisher`.
Test Plan: Ran `./bin/diviner generate --publisher DivinerStaticPublisher`
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11588
Summary: Minor tidying and modernizing a few things.
Test Plan: Ran `./bin/diviner atomize` and `./bin/diviner generate`.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11587
Summary: Ref T7094.
Test Plan: couldn't really test this - how does one get symbols going nowadays given they are acanist project based?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11584
Summary: Minor tweaks to font size, message pane spacing.
Test Plan: use more common spacing (4px grid)
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11583
Summary:
Ref T6881. This generates a product, purchase and invoice for users, and there's sort of some UI for them. Stuff it doesn't do yet:
- Try to autobill when we have a CC;
- actually tell the user they should pay it;
- ask the application for anything like "how much should we charge", or tell the application anything like "the user paid".
However, these work:
- You can //technically// pay the invoices.
- You can see the invoices you paid in the past.
Test Plan: Used `bin/phriction invoice` to double-bill myself over and over again. Paid one of the invoices.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11580
Summary: Ref T7094. Could just delete this end point too I guess? Needed to add "withCommitPHIDs" to the differentialrevisionquery to get this done.
Test Plan: used diffusion.getcommits from conduit console and got a sensible result for a query for two commits, one with a diff and one without.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11581
Summary:
Ref T6881. This adds the worker, and a script to make it easier to test. It doesn't actually invoice anything.
I'm intentionally allowing the script to double-bill since it makes testing way easier (by letting you bill the same period over and over again), and provides a tool for recovery if billing screws up.
(This diff isn't very interesting, just trying to avoid a 5K-line diff at the end.)
Test Plan: Used `bin/phortune invoice ...` to get the worker to print out some date ranges which it would theoretically invoice.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11577
Summary:
Ref T6881.
- Add a subscription detail page.
Minor cosmetics:
- Fix glyph, from "X" (old "X marks the spot" icon) to "diamond" (new gem icon).
- Name the initial account "Default Account" instead of "Personal Account", since this seems more general.
Test Plan:
{F278623}
And I got two full days to test that Jan 30/31 -> Feb 28 billing logic!
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11576
Summary:
Ref T6881. This still doesn't "work" in any reasonable sense of the word, but gets us a bit further.
I'll build out the Phortune UI a little bit next, then look at implementing the Worker to do actual billing.
Test Plan:
- Allocated an instance and saw a Subscription generate properly.
- Saw subscription show up in the Phortune UI, albeit in a very limited way.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6881
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11575
Summary:
Ref T7094. We should do a policy query on the files IMO because there exists a scenario where the file gets locked down directly. This requires being a bit more disciplined about setting user, which in turn requires deciding whether or not to show edit / reply links as a separate piece of logic, not conditional on user presence.
This is not the best code but I don't think it gets worse with this and is just some other nuance in any larger cleanup we take on someday.
Test Plan: looked at a revision and noted inline comments rendered correctly with reply / edit actions. looked at a diff standalone and noted no reply / edit actions as expected. looked at a "details" link on a transaction and it rendered correctly. looked at a diff in phriction of page edits and it looked good. grepped around and verified the remaining callsite in diffusion already has the setUser call.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7094
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11579
Summary: Fixes T1476. The body of the email should be just the output of some diff command.
Test Plan:
git diff master > text.txt; ./bin/mail receive-test --to <configured-diff-create-address> < text.txt; a diff was successfully created...! email generated had a working link to the diff.
./bin/mail receive-test --to <configured-diff-create-address> < README.md; a diff was not created as expected...! email generated had a sensical error message, telling me that the mail body should have been generated via a diff command
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: johnny-bit, Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T1476
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11574
Summary: Main plan is to give conversations in Conpherence or Durable Column a different, lighter, chatty feel like Phriction.
Test Plan:
Tested a couple of threads and remarkup styles.
{F278086}
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11562
Summary: Fixes T6819. This isn't as useful as you might think and has one horribly buggy behavior - if you edit an object which has a description and a projects field, you can be unable to remove the associated project as the automagic association from the description kicks in. Further, since we've added the ability for applications to create multiple email addresses AND herald can react to those emails - say by programmatically adding projects - the known needs for this feature are basically 0. If this proves to be false we can maybe add some other syntax for these mentions - see T6819 for ideas / discussion.
Test Plan: removed a project from a maniphest task while still mentioning it in the description and it worked!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6819
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11573
Summary: Improves Source Sans Pro italics rendering
Test Plan: Tested a Phriction document with normal and bold italics.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11572
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 T3404. The only mildly sketchy bit is these codepaths all load the application email directly, by-passing privacy. I think this is necessary because not getting to see an application doesn't mean you should be able to break the application by registering a colliding email address.
Test Plan:
Tried to add a registered application email to a user account via the web ui and got a pretty error.
Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3404
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11565
Summary: due to typehints, passing null is going to barf here. Ref D11564, ref T5039.
Test Plan: made an edit to a task from the web ui and it didnt fatal
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5039
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11571
Summary:
Hit this locally, with an error like:
> Version <empty string> is older than 1.9, the minimum supported version.
(Where `<empty string>` was just the empty string, not literally the text `<empty string>`.)
Be more careful about parsing versions, and parse the newer string.
Test Plan: Got "unknown version" with intentionally-broken test data, then clean readout.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11558
Summary: Fix 'No Conpherences' layout, add 'Recent' label to list.
Test Plan: test with and without a list of threads.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11569
Summary:
Fixes T5039. The trick / possibly lame part here is we only match 1 application email and its undefined which one. e.g. if a user emails us at address x, y, and z only one of those will pick up the mail. Ergo, don't let users define non-sensical herald conditions like "matches all". Also document what I think was non-intuitive about the code with an inline comment; we have to return an array with just a phid from an object and out of context it feels very "what the...???"
Note this needs to be deployed to other applications still, but I think its okay to close T5039 aggressively here since its done from a user story perspective.
Test Plan: set up a herald rule to flag tasks created as blue via app email x. sent an email to x via `bin/mail receive-test` and verified the task had the blue flag
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5039
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11564
