Summary: Adds core and apps grouping to configuration options, makes it somewhat easier to browse config options.
Test Plan: Set each option, review list. Breakdown is nearly 50/50 apps/core.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11722
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: 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: Fixes T6957. If / when a policy object is destroyed, access to an object that uses that policy object is denied.
Test Plan: looked around in the code to fail confident enough to write the summary above
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6957
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11380
Summary: Fast commit. Also forgot to make the config override the existing policy. I *think* this is the right spot and we're good? Ref T6947.
Test Plan: viewed the application settings page for people application and saw the correct overrode setting.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6947
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11373
Summary: Fixes T6947
Test Plan:
locked people.create.user and noted the UI only showed a link to the existing policy with no way to edit it.
tried to set the config to all the various bad things and saw helpful error messages telling me what I did wrong.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6947
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11358
Summary: Ref T5655. Fixes T6849. This is another take on D11131, which was missing the DB migration and was reverted in rP7c4de0f6be77ddaea593e1f41ae27211ec179a55.
Test Plan: Ran `./bin/storage upgrade` and verified that the classes were renamed in the `phabricator_policy.policy` table.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6849, T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11166
Summary: Missed this in previous pass. Send these as links in HTML emails.
Test Plan: Register a new user that nees approval.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10815
Summary: We were saying "Object Restricted Object"; instead say "Restricted Object". Fixes T6104.
Test Plan: made a restricted paste and a restricted task and saw good error messages. {F215281} {F215282}
Reviewers: epriestley, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6104
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10668
Summary:
Ref T1191. Now that the whole database is covered, we don't need to do as much work to build expected schemata. Doing them database-by-database was helpful in converting, but is just reudndant work now.
Instead of requiring every application to build its Lisk objects, just build all Lisk objects.
I removed `harbormaster.lisk_counter` because it is unused.
It would be nice to autogenerate edge schemata, too, but that's a little trickier.
Test Plan: Database setup issues are all green.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T1191
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10620
Summary: This fixes a unit test failure that started occurring due to the new membership locking feature.
Test Plan: Ran the unit tests.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10546
Summary: Instead of implementing the `getCapabilityKey` method in all subclasses of `PhabricatorPolicyCapability`, provide a `final` implementation in the base class which uses reflection. See D9837 and D9985 for similar implementations.
Test Plan: N/A
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10039
Summary: Ref T5655. Rename `PhabricatorPHIDType` subclasses for clarity (see discussion in D9839). I'm not too keen on some of the resulting class names, so feel free to suggest alternatives.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9986
Summary: Provide an implementation for the `getName` method rather than automagically determining the application name.
Test Plan: Saw reasonable application names in the launcher.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10027
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: Instead of implementing the `getTypeConstant` method in all subclasses of `PhabricatorPHIDType`, provide a `final` implementation in the base class which uses reflection. See D9837 for a similar implementation.
Test Plan: Ran `arc unit`.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9985
Summary: Ref T4420. Update "projects" source.
Test Plan:
- Edited projects on a Differential revision.
- Edited projects on a commit.
- Edited projects on a repository.
- Edited projects in feed search.
- Edited projects in a Herald rule field.
- Edited projects in a Herald rule action.
- Edited projects in Maniphest batch editor.
- Edited projects on Maniphest task.
- Edited projects in "Associate Projects..." action in Maniphest.
- Edited projects on Maniphest search in "all projects", "any project" and "not projects" fields.
- Edited projects on a Paste.
- Edited projects on a Pholio mock.
- Edited projects on a custom policy rule.
- Edited projects on a Ponder question.
- Edited projects on a Diffusion search query.
- Edited projects on a global search query.
- Edited projects on a slowvote.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4420
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9884
Summary:
Ref T3116. Allow documents to be queried for ones the viewer has signed, and make this the default view.
This also relaxes the versioning stuff a little bit, and stops invalidating signatures on older versions of documents. While I think we should do that eventually, it should be more explicit and have better coordination in the UI. For now, we'll track and show older signatures, but not invalidate them.
I imagine eventually differentiating between "minor edits" (typo / link fixes, for example) and major edits which actually require re-signature.
Test Plan: {F171650}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3116
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9769
Summary: Ran `arc lint --apply-patches --everything` over rP, mainly to change double quotes to single quotes where appropriate. These changes also validate that the `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_DOUBLE_QUOTE` rule is working as expected.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9431
Summary:
This does some backend cleanup of the tile stuff, and some general cleanup of other application things:
- Users who haven't customized preferences get a small, specific set of pinned applications: Differential, Maniphest, Diffusion, Audit, Phriction, Projects (and, for administrators, Auth, Config and People).
- Old tile size methods are replaced with `isPinnnedByDefault()`.
- Shortened some short descriptions.
- `shouldAppearInLaunchView()` replaced by less ambiguous `isLaunchable()`.
- Added a marker for third-party / extension applications.
Test Plan: Faked away my preferences and viewed the home page, saw a smaller set of default pins.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9358
Summary:
Updates policy, headers, typeaheads to FA over policy icons
Need advice - can't seem to place where icons come from on Typeahead? Wrong icons and wrong colors.... it is late
Test Plan:
- grepped for SPRITE_STATUS
- grepped for sprite-status
- grepped for setStatus for headers
- grepped individual icons names
Browsed numerous places, checked new dropdowns, see pudgy people.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T4739
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9179
Summary: 'cuz those can be complicated. Fixes T4738. I needed to do a fair amount of heavy lifting to get the policy stuff rendering correctly. For now, I made this end point very one purpose and tried to make that clear.
Test Plan: looked at some custom policies. see screenshots.
Reviewers: chad, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T4738
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8890
Summary:
There are quite a few tests in Arcanist, libphutil and Phabricator that do something similar to `$this->assertEqual(false, ...)` or `$this->assertEqual(true, ...)`.
This is unnecessarily verbose and it would be cleaner if we had `assertFalse` and `assertTrue` methods.
Test Plan: I contemplated adding a unit test for the `getCallerInfo` method but wasn't sure if it was required / where it should live.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8460
Summary:
Ref T4379. Currently, you can edit away your edit capability in Projects. Prevent this in a general way.
Since some objects have complex edit policies (like "the owner can always edit"), we can't just check the value itself. We also can't fairly assume that every object has a `setEditPolicy()` method, even though almost all do right now. Instead, provide a way to pretend we've completed the edit and changed the policy.
Test Plan: Unit tests, tried to edit away my edit capability.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4379
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8179
Summary:
Ref T3116. This creates a policy rule where you can require a signature on a given legalpad document.
NOTE: signatures must be for the *latest* document version.
Test Plan: made a task have a custom policy requiring a legalpad signature. verified non-signers were locked out.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3116
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7977
Summary: Ref T4136. After Passphrase, user policies work correctly in this dropdown. Providing this option improves consistency and makes it easier to create, e.g., a private repository (where "no one" does not include the viewer, because they don't own the resulting object).
Test Plan: Set an object's policy to my user policy.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4136
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7858
Summary:
Ref T2015. Not directly related to Drydock, but I've wanted to do this for a bit.
Introduce a common base class for all the workflows in the scripts in `bin/*`. This slightly reduces code duplication by moving `isExecutable()` to the base, but also provides `getViewer()`. This is a little nicer than `PhabricatorUser::getOmnipotentUser()` and gives us a layer of indirection if we ever want to introduce more general viewer mechanisms in scripts.
Test Plan: Lint; ran some of the scripts.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7838
Summary:
These just got copy/pasted like crazy, the base class has the correct default implementation.
(I'm adding "H" for Herald Rules, which is why I was in this code.)
I also documented the existing prefixes at [[ Object Name Prefixes ]].
Test Plan: Verified base implementation. Typed some object names into the jump nav.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: hach-que, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7785
Summary:
`PhabricatorPolicyFilter` has a bug right now where it lets through objects incorrectly if:
- the query requests two or more policies;
- the object satisfies at least one of those policies; and
- policy exceptions are not enabled.
This would be bad, but there's only one call in the codebase which satisfies all of these conditions, in the Maniphest batch editor. And it's moot anyway because edit operations get another policy check slightly later. So there is no policy/security impact from this flaw.
(The next diff relies on this behavior, which is how I caught it.)
Test Plan:
- Added a failing unit test and made it pass.
- Grepped the codebase for `requireCapabilities()` and verified that there is no security impact. Basically, 99% of callsites use `executeOne()`, which throws anyway and moots the filtering.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7721
Summary:
Ref T4122. Implements a credential management application for the uses described in T4122.
@chad, this needs an icon, HA HA HAHA HA BWW HA HA HA
bwahaha
Test Plan: See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4122
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7608
Summary:
Fixes T4109. If a revision has a bad `repositoryPHID` (for example, because the repository was deleted), `DifferentialRevisionQuery` calls `didRejectResult()` on it, which raises a policy exception, even if the viewer is omnipotent. This aborts the `MessageParser`, because it does not expect policy exceptions to be raised for an omnipotent viewer.
Fix this in two ways:
# Never raise a policy exception for an omnipotent viewer. I think this is the expected behavior and a reasonable rule.
# In this case, load the revision for an omnipotent viewer.
This feels a little gross, but it's the only place where we do this in the codebase right now. We can clean this up later on once it's more clear what the circumstances of checks like these are.
Test Plan: Set a revision to have an invalid `repositoryPHID`, ran message parser on it, got a clean parse.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4109
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7603
Summary:
@chad is hitting an issue described in P961, which I think is this bug in PHP: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43200
Work around it by defining a "PHIDInterface" and having both "Flaggable" and "Policy" extend it, so that there is only one `getPHID()` declaration.
Test Plan: shrug~
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: chad
CC: chad, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7408
Summary:
Ref T1049. I don't really want to sink too much time into this right now, but a seemingly reasonable architecture came to me in a dream. Here's a high-level overview of how things fit together:
- **"Build"**: In Harbormaster, "build" means any process we want to run against a working copy. It might actually be building an executable, but it might also be running lint, running unit tests, generating documentation, generating symbols, running a deploy, setting up a sandcastle, etc.
- `HarbormasterBuildable`: A "buildable" is some piece of code which build operations can run on. Generally, this is either a Differential diff or a Diffusion commit. The Buildable class just wraps those objects and provides a layer of abstraction. Currently, you can manually create a buildable from a commit. In the future, this will be done automatically.
- `HarbormasterBuildStep`: A "build step" is an individual build operation, like "run lint", "run unit", "build docs", etc. The step defines how to perform the operation (for example, "run unit tests by executing 'arc unit'"). In this diff, this barely exists.
- `HarbormasterBuildPlan`: This glues together build steps into groups or sequences. For example, you might want to "run unit", and then "deploy" if the tests pass. You can create a build plan which says "run step "unit tests", then run step "deploy" on success" or whatever. In the future, these will also contain triggers/conditions ("Automatically run this build plan against every commit") and probably be able to define failure actions ("If this plan fails, send someone an email"). Because build plans will run commands, only administrators can manage them.
- `HarbormasterBuild`: This is the concrete result of running a `BuildPlan` against a `Buildable`. It tracks the build status and collects results, so you can see if the build is running/successful/failed. A `Buildable` may have several `Build`s, because you can execute more than one `BuildPlan` against it. For example, you might have a "documentation" build plan which you run continuously against HEAD, but a "unit" build plan which you want to run against every commit.
- `HarbormasterBuildTarget`: This is the concrete result of running a `BuildStep` against a `Buildable`. These are children of `Build`. A step might be able to produce multiple targets, but generally this is something like "Unit Tests" or "Lint" and has an overall status, so you can see at a glance that unit tests were fine but lint had some issues.
- `HarbormasterBuildItem`: An optional subitem for a target. For lint, this might be an individual file. For unit tests, an individual test. For normal builds, an executable. For deploys, a server. For documentation generation, there might just not be subitems.
- `HarbormasterBuildLog`: Provides extra information, like command/execution transcripts. This is where stdout/stderr will get dumped, and general details and other messages.
- `HarbormasterBuildArtifact`: Stores side effects or results from build steps. For example, something which builds a binary might put the binary in "Files" and then put its PHID here. Unit tests might put coverage information here. Generally, any build step which produces some high-level output object can use this table to record its existence.
This diff implements almost nothing and does nothing useful, but puts most of these object relationships in place. The two major things you can't easily do with these objects are:
1) Run arbitrary cron jobs. Jenkins does this, but it feels tacked on and I don't know of anyone using it for that. We could create fake Buildables to get a similar effect, but if we need to do this I'd rather do it elsewhere in general. Build and cron/service/monitoring feel like pretty different problems to me.
2) Run parameterized/matrix steps (maybe?). Bamboo has this plan/stage/task/job breakdown where a build step can generate a zillion actual jobs, like "build client on x86", "build server on x86", "build client on ARM", "build server on ARM", etc. We can sort of do this by having a Step map to multiple Targets, but I haven't really thought about it too much and it may end up being not-great. I'd guess we have like an 80% chance of getting a clean implementation if/when we get there. I suspect no one actually needs this, or when they do they'll just implement a custom Step and it can be parameterized at that level. I'm not too worried about this overall.
The major difference between this and Jenkins/Bamboo/TravisCI is that all three of those are **plan-centric**: the primary object in the system is a build plan, and the dashboard shows you all your build plans and the current status. I don't think this is the right model. One disadvantage is that you basically end up with top-level messaging that says "Trunk is broken", not "Trunk was broken by commit af32f392f". Harbormaster is **buildable-centric**: the primary object in the system is stuff you can run build operations against (commits/branches/revisions), and actual build plans are secondary. The main view will be "recent commits on this branch, and whether they're good or not" -- which I think is what's most important in a larger/more complex product -- not the pass/fail status of all jobs. This also makes it easier and more natural to integrate with Differential and Diffusion, which both care about the overall status of the commit/revision, not the current status of jobs.
Test Plan: Poked around, but this doesn't really do anything yet.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: zeeg, chad, aran, seporaitis
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7368
Summary: `class_exists()` is case-insensitive, but `PhabricatorApplication::getByClass()` is not.
Test Plan: Fixed unit test to fail, then fixed code to pass unit test.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7379
Summary:
While we mostly have reasonable effective object accessibility when you lock a user out of an application, it's primarily enforced at the controller level. Users can still, e.g., load the handles of objects they can't actually see. Instead, lock the queries to the applications so that you can, e.g., never load a revision if you don't have access to Differential.
This has several parts:
- For PolicyAware queries, provide an application class name method.
- If the query specifies a class name and the user doesn't have permission to use it, fail the entire query unconditionally.
- For handles, simplify query construction and count all the PHIDs as "restricted" so we get a UI full of "restricted" instead of "unknown" handles.
Test Plan:
- Added a unit test to verify I got all the class names right.
- Browsed around, logged in/out as a normal user with public policies on and off.
- Browsed around, logged in/out as a restricted user with public policies on and off. With restrictions, saw all traces of restricted apps removed or restricted.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7367
Summary:
Ref T603. Fixes T2823. This updates Paste and Macro.
- **Paste**
- Added default view policy.
- I didn't add a "create" policy, since I can't come up with any realistic scenario where you'd give users access to pastes but not let them create them.
- **Macro**
- Added a "manage" policy, which covers creating and editing macros. This lets an install only allow "People With An Approved Sense of Humor" or whatever to create macros.
- Removed the "edit" policy, since giving individual users access to specific macros doesn't make much sense to me.
- Changed the view policy to the "most public" policy the install allows.
- Added view policy information to the header.
Also fix a couple of minor things in Maniphest.
Test Plan:
- Set Paste policy, created pastes via web and Conduit, saw they got the right default policies.
- Set Macro policy, tried to create/edit macros with valid and unauthorized users.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2823, T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7317
Summary: Ref T603. When a user selects "Custom", we pop open the rules dialog and let them create a new rule or edit the existing rule.
Test Plan: Set some objects to have custom policies.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7300
