1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge.git synced 2024-12-11 16:16:14 +01:00
Commit graph

6 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
epriestley
ead5f4fd9c Add an "Accepting reviewers" Herald field for commits
Summary:
See PHI262. Fixes T12578. Although this is a bit niche and probably better accomplished through advisory/soft measures ("Add blocking reviewers") in most cases, it isn't difficult to implement and doesn't create any technical or product tension.

If installs write a rule that blocks commits, that will probably also naturally lead them to an "add reviewers" rule anyway.

Also, allow packages to be hit with the typeahead. They're valid reviewers but previously you couldn't write rules against them, for no actual reason.

Test Plan: Used test console to run this against commits, got sensible results for the field value.

Reviewers: amckinley

Reviewed By: amckinley

Maniphest Tasks: T12578

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18839
2017-12-26 15:59:36 -08:00
epriestley
d179d0150c Remove obsolete "relationships" code from Differential
Summary:
Ref T10967. There have been two different ways to load reviewers for a while: `needReviewerStatus()` and `needRelationships()`.

The `needRelationships()` stuff was a false start along time ago that didn't really go anywhere. I believe the idea was that we might want to load several different types of edges (subscribers, reviewers, etc) on lots of different types of objects. However, all that stuff pretty much ended up modularizing so that main `Query` classes did not need to know about it, so `needRelationships()` never got generalized or went anywhere.

A handful of things still use it, but get rid of them: they should either `needReviewerStatus()` to get reviewer info, or the ~3 callsites that care about subscribers can just load them directly.

Test Plan:
  - Grepped for removed methods (`needRelationships()`, `getReviewers()`, `getCCPHIDs()`, etc).
  - Browsed Diffusion, Differential.
  - Called `differential.query`.

It's possible I missed some stuff, but it should mostly show up as super obvious fatals ("call needReviewerStatus() before getReviewerStatus()!").

Reviewers: chad

Reviewed By: chad

Maniphest Tasks: T10967

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17518
2017-03-20 16:45:48 -07:00
epriestley
0306eb70ed Group and order Herald fields
Summary:
Ref T8726. Some adapters now have a large number of fields, and we lost the sort-of-human-readable implicit ordering when fields were modularized.

Instead, group and sort fields.

Test Plan: {F603066}

Reviewers: btrahan, chad

Reviewed By: chad

Subscribers: epriestley

Maniphest Tasks: T8726

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13619
2015-07-16 14:13:13 -07:00
epriestley
715233fb61 Fully modularize Herald field values
Summary: Ref T8726. This gets rid of all the `VALUE_*` constants and lets Fields provide arbitrary typeaheads without upstream/JS changes.

Test Plan: Used all tokenizers. Used "Another Herald Rule". Grepped for all removed constants.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

Subscribers: epriestley

Maniphest Tasks: T8726

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13616
2015-07-16 14:12:44 -07:00
epriestley
b2b739c709 Reduce code duplication in Herald fields
Summary:
Ref T8726. I want to modularize values and reduce how hard-coded / copypasta'd they are.

  - Rename `get...StandardCondition()` to `get...StandardType()`, since we can drive both conditions and values from it.
  - Rename `STANDARD_LIST` to `STANDARD_PHID_LIST` for consistency: all "lists" are lists of PHIDs.
  - For all standard types which don't require typehaeads, lift their logic into the base class.
  - I'll lift typeaheads soon, but need to generalize them first.

Test Plan: Edited various Herald rules, saw value UI generate correctly.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

Subscribers: epriestley

Maniphest Tasks: T8726

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13612
2015-07-16 14:11:44 -07:00
epriestley
e8f063de25 Modularize Herald Diffusion pre-commit content fields
Summary: Ref T8726. The gruntwork part of this is finally over.

Test Plan:
  - Made a huge rule with every field.
  - Applied migration.
  - Verified the rule was still the same.
  - Pushed a bunch of commits and verified transcripts.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

Subscribers: epriestley

Maniphest Tasks: T8726

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13601
2015-07-08 12:26:57 -07:00