Summary:
Ref T6367. Removes `multiplexMail()`!
We can't pass a single body into a function which splits it anymore: we need to split recipients first, then build bodies for each recipient list. This lets us build separate bodies for each recipient's individual translation/access levels.
The new logic does this:
- First, split recipients into groups called "targets".
- Each target corresponds to one actual mail we're going to build.
- Each target has a viewer (whose translation / access levels will be used to generate the mail).
- Each target has a to/cc list (the users who we'll ultimately send the mail to).
- For each target, build a custom mail body based on the viewer's access levels and settings (language prefs not actually implemented).
- Then, deliver the mail.
Test Plan:
- Read new config help.
Then did a bunch of testing, primarily with `bin/mail list-outbound` and `bin/mail show-outbound` (to review generated mail), `bin/phd debug taskmaster` (to run daemons freely) and `bin/worker execute --id <id>` (to repeatedly test a specific piece of code after identifying an issue).
With `one-mail-per-recipient` on (default):
- Sent mail to multiple users.
- Verified mail showed up in `mail list-outbound`.
- Examined mail with `mail show-outbound`.
- Added a project that a subscriber could not see.
- Verified it was not present in `X-Phabricator-Projects`.
- Verified it was rendered as "Restricted Project" for the non-permissioned viewer.
- Added a subscriber, then changed the object policy so they could not see it and sent mail.
- Verified I received mail but the other user did not.
- Enabled public replies and verified mail generated with public addresses.
- Disabld public replies and verified mail generated with private addresses.
With `one-mail-per-recipient` off:
- Verified that one mail is sent to all recipients.
- Verified users who can not see the object are still filtered.
- Verified that partially-visible projects are completely visible in the mail (this violates policies, as documented, as the best available compromise).
- Enabled public replies and verified the mail generated with "Reply To".
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: carlsverre, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6367
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13131
Summary:
Ref T7199. These were a bad idea which got copy-pasted a bunch.
- There is zero reason to ever set these to different things.
- Unsurprisingly, I don't know of any install which has them set to different things.
Unless I've completely forgotten about it, this option was not motivated by some obscure business need, it was just a bad decision which didn't catch anyone's attention at the time.
We partially remedied the mistake at some point by introducing `metamta.reply-handler-domain`, which works as a default for all applications, but never cleaned this mess up.
Test Plan: Sent some mail from applications, verified it picked up appropraite reply handler domains.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7199
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D12231
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:
Fixes T4677. Implements a "send an email" pre-receive action, which sends push summaries.
For use cases where features are often pushed as a large number of commits (e.g., checkpoint commits are retained), using commit emails means users get a ton of email. Instead, this allows you to get an email about a push, which summarizes what changed.
Overall, this is basically the same as commit email, but more suitable for some workflows.
Test Plan:
Wrote some rules, then made a bunch of pushes. Got email like this:
{F134929}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4677
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8618
