Summary: Continue clean up of super-old code. I am pretty proud of "defrocked", but would also consider "dethroned", "ousted", "unseated", "unmade", or "disenfranchised". I feel like there's a word for being kicked out of Hogwarts and having your wizarding powers revoked, but it is not leaping to mind.
Test Plan: Promoted/demoted users to/from admin, attempted to demote myself and observed preserved witty text, checked user timelines, checked feed, checked DB for sanity, including `user_logs`. I didn't test exposing this via Conduit to attempt promoting a user without having admin access.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19891
Summary:
Depends on D19886. Ref T13222. Clean up MFA challenges after they expire.
(There's maybe some argument to keeping these around for a little while for debugging/forensics, but I suspect it would never actually be valuable and figure we can cross that bridge if we come to it.)
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/garbage collect --collector ...` and saw old MFA challenges collected.
- Triggered a new challenge, GC'd again, saw it survive GC while still active.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19888
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Ref T9770.
Currently, we support only TOTP MFA. For some MFA (SMS and "push-to-app"-style MFA) we may need to keep track of MFA details (e.g., the code we SMS'd you). There isn't much support for that yet.
We also currently allow free reuse of TOTP responses across sessions and workflows. This hypothetically enables some "spyglass" attacks where you look at someone's phone and type the code in before they do. T9770 discusses this in more detail, but is focused on an attack window starting when the user submits the form. I claim the attack window opens when the TOTP code is shown on their phone, and the window between the code being shown and being submitted is //much// more interesting than the window after it is submitted.
To address both of these cases, start tracking MFA "Challenges". These are basically a record that we asked you to give us MFA credentials.
For TOTP, the challenge binds a particular timestep to a given session, so an attacker can't look at your phone and type the code into their browser before (or after) you do -- they have a different session. For now, this means that codes are reusable in the same session, but that will be refined in the future.
For SMS / push, the "Challenge" would store the code we sent you so we could validate it.
This is mostly a step on the way toward one-shot MFA, ad-hoc MFA in comment action stacks, and figuring out what's going on with Duo.
Test Plan:
- Passed MFA normally.
- Passed MFA normally, simultaneously, as two different users.
- With two different sessions for the same user:
- Opened MFA in A, opened MFA in B. B got a "wait".
- Submitted MFA in A.
- Clicked "Wait" a bunch in B.
- Submitted MFA in B when prompted.
- Passed MFA normally, then passed MFA normally again with the same code in the same session. (This change does not prevent code reuse.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T9770
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19886
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Currently, MFA implementations return this weird sort of ad-hoc dictionary from validation, which is later used to render form/control stuff.
I want to make this more formal to handle token reuse / session binding cases, and let MFA factors share more code around challenges. Formalize this into a proper object instead of an ad-hoc bundle of properties.
Test Plan:
- Answered a TOTP MFA prompt wrong (nothing, bad value).
- Answered a TOTP MFA prompt properly.
- Added new TOTP MFA, survived enrollment.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19885
Summary: Cleaning up more super-old code from `PhabricatorUserEditor`. Also fix user logging in approve transactions. I'm not sure how it worked at all previously.
Test Plan: Created new users, renamed them, checked DB for sanity. Entered invalid names, duplicate names, and empty names, got appropriate error messages.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19887
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. I'm preparing to introduce a new MFA "Challenge" table which stores state about challenges we've issued (to bind challenges to sessions and prevent most challenge reuse).
This table will reference sessions (since each challenge will be bound to a particular session) but sessions currently don't have PHIDs. Give them PHIDs and slightly modernize some related code.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Verified table got PHIDs.
- Used `var_dump()` to dump an organic user session.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19881
Summary: Fixes T13218. We have no more callers to any of this and can get rid of it forever.
Test Plan: Grepped for all four API methods, `LiskDAOSet`, and `inSet`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13218
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19879
Summary: Depends on D19865. Ref T13222. See PHI996. Provide a `bin/aphlict notify --user ... --message ...` workflow for sending test notifications from the CLI.
Test Plan: {F6058287}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19866
Summary: Depends on D19864. Ref T13222. See PHI996. This is no longer used by anything, so get rid of it.
Test Plan: Grepped; viewed a feed with these stories in it to make sure nothing crashed/exploded.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19865
Summary:
Depends on D19860. Ref T13222. Ref T10743. See PHI996.
Long ago, there were different types of feed stories. Over time, there was less and less need for this, and nowadays basically everything is a "transaction" feed story. Each story renders differently, but they're fundamentally all about transactions.
The Notification test controller still uses a custom type of feed story to send notifications. Move away from this, and apply a transaction against the user instead. This has the same ultimate effect, but involves less weird custom code from ages long forgotten.
This doesn't fix the actual problem with these things showing up in feed. Currently, stories always use the same rendering for feed and notifications, and there need to be some additional changes to fix this. So no behavioral change yet, just slightly more reasonable code.
Test Plan: Clicked the button and got some test notifications, with Aphlict running.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T10743
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19861
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. Currently, "Create Subtask" always uses the first edit form that the user has access to for the same task subtype. (For example, if you "Create Subtask" from a "Bug", you get the first edit form for "Bugs".)
I didn't want to go too crazy with the initial subtype implementation, but it seems like we're generally on firm ground and it's working fairly well: user requests are for more flexibility in using the system as implemented, not changes to the system or confusion/difficulty with any of the tradeoffs. Thus, I'm generally comfortable continuing to build it out in the same direction. To improve flexibility, I want to make the options from "Create Subtask" more flexible/configurable.
I plan to let you specify that a given subtype (say, "Quest") prompts you with creation options for a set of other subtypes (say, "Objective"), or prompts you with a particular set of forms.
If we end up with a single option, we just go into the current flow (directly to the edit form). If we end up with more than one option, we prompt the user to choose between them.
This change is a first step toward this:
- When building "Create Subtask", query for multiple forms.
- The default behavior is now "prompt user to choose among create forms of the same subtype". Previously, it was "use the first edit form of the same subtype". This is a behavioral change.
- The next change will make the selected forms configurable.
- (I also plan to make the dialog itself less rough.)
Test Plan: {F6051067}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19853
Summary: Ref T13222. See PHI990. The older `user.query` supports availability information, but it isn't currently available in a modern way. Make it available.
Test Plan: {F6048126}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19851
Summary: Ref T13222. Ref T12588. See PHI683. To make "Create Subtask..." fancier, we need slightly more logic around subtype maps. Upgrade the plain old array into a proper object so it can have relevant methods, notably "get a list of valid child subtypes for some parent subtype".
Test Plan: Created and edited tasks, changed task subtypes. Grepped for affected symbols (`newEditEngineSubtypeMap`, `newSubtypeMap`).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19852
Summary:
Depends on D19831. Ref T13216. See PHI908. Allegedly, a user copied a large repository into itself and then pushed it. Great backup strategy, but it can create headaches for administrators.
Allow a "maximum paths you can touch with one commit" limit to be configured, to make it harder for users to make this push this kind of commit by accident.
If you actually intended to do this, you can work around this by breaking your commit into pieces (or temporarily removing the limit). This isn't a security/policy sort of option, it's just a guard against silly mistakes.
Test Plan: Set limit to 2, tried to push 3 files, got rejected. Raised limit, pushed changes successfully.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19839
Summary: Depends on D19830. Ref T13216. See PHI908. See PHI750. See PHI885. Allow users to configure a filesize limit, and allow them to adjust the clone/fetch timeout.
Test Plan:
{F6021356}
- Configured a filesize limit and pushed, hit it. Made the limit larger and pushed, change went through.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19831
Summary:
Depends on D19829. Ref T13216. See PHI908. The current implementation is kind of a lot to live in `CommitHookEngine` and will likely fail if `git diff-tree` produces more than 2GB of output.
Pull it out and make it slightly more robust against enormous commits. It's probably limited by this, now:
```
implode("\n", $every_path)
```
We could replace that with some `PhutilReverseRopeSource` primitive or something but since we don't have one of those and it seems unlikely that we'll hit this case in practice, I left it here for now with just the easy stuff converted to be stream-oriented.
Test Plan:
Used this script to test the query against various commits, got good results:
```
<?php
require_once 'scripts/init/init-script.php';
$viewer = PhabricatorUser::getOmnipotentUser();
$repository = id(new PhabricatorRepositoryQuery())
->setViewer($viewer)
->withCallsigns(array('P'))
->executeOne();
var_dump(
id(new DiffusionLowLevelFilesizeQuery())
->setRepository($repository)
->withIdentifier($argv[1])
->execute());
```
Used this to find large commits in history and pull filesizes (worked great, although our largest commit only touches a couple thousand paths):
```
for hash in `git log --format=%H`; do echo -n $hash; echo -n ' '; git diff-tree -r --no-commit-id $hash | wc -l | awk '{print $1}'; done | awk '{print $2 " " $1}' | sort -n
```
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19830
Summary: Depends on D19826. Ref T13216. We have a fair number of options here; add some groups so the "Build" stuff can go in a little subcategory and such.
Test Plan: {F6020896}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19827
Summary: Ref T13222. See PHI986. See PHI896. Harbormaster build targets don't currently have a modern "*.search" API, but there's no reason not to provide one (even if some of the use cases are a little bit questionable).
Test Plan: {F6032423}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19841
Summary: Ref T13216. See D19666. It's currently tricky to profile Herald test runs since you have to submit a form and repeating them is a bit of a mess. Provide a simple CLI wrapper so we can use `--xprofile`. This is also maybe nice-to-have if we're ever debugging anything here.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/herald test --object ... --type ...` and got a sensible looking transcript in the UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19806
Summary: Depends on D19798. Ref T13216. This puts at least a basic UI on top of sync logs.
Test Plan:
Viewed logs from the web UI and exported data. Note that these syncs are somewhat simulated since I my local cluster is somewhat-faked (i.e., not actually multiple machines).
{F5995899}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19799
Summary:
Depends on D19778. Ref T13216. See PHI943, PHI889, et al.
We currently have a push log and a pull log, but do not separately log intracluster synchronization events. We've encountered several specific cases where having this kind of log would be helpful:
- In PHI943, an install was accidentally aborting locks early. Having timing information in the sync log would let us identify this more quickly.
- In PHI889, an install hit an issue with `MaxStartups` configuration in `sshd`. A log would let us identify when this is an issue.
- In PHI889, I floated a "push the linux kernel + fetch timeout" theory. A sync log would let us see sync/fetch timeouts to confirm this being a problem in practice.
- A sync log will help us assess, develop, test, and monitor intracluster routing sync changes (likely those in T13211) in the future.
Some of these events are present in the pull log already, but only if they make it as far as running a `git upload-pack` subprocess (not the case with `MaxStartups` problems) -- and they can't record end-to-end timing.
No UI yet, I'll add that in a future change.
Test Plan:
- Forced all operations to synchronize by adding `|| true` to the version check.
- Pulled, got a sync log in the database.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19779
Summary:
Ref T13210. Ref T11908. Add some basic test coverage for the new "%R" introduced in D19764, then convert LiskDAO to implement the "Database + Table Ref" interface.
To move forward, we need to convert all of these (where `%T` is not a table alias):
```counterexample
qsprintf($conn, '... %T ...', $thing->getTableName());
```
...to these:
```
qsprintf($conn, '... %R ...', $thing);
```
The new code is a little simpler (no `->getTableName()` call) which is sort of nice. But we also have a //lot// of `%T` so this is probably going to take a while.
(I'll hold this until after the release cut.)
Test Plan:
- Ran unit tests.
- Browsed around and edited some objects without issues. This change causes a reasonably large percentage of our total queries to use the new code since the LiskDAO builtin queries are some of the most commonly-constructed queries, although there are still ~700 callsites which need to be examined for possible conversion.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13210, T11908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19765
Summary:
See T13212 for some context and discussion on this being revived.
See T11694 for original context.
Add a query constraint for lease owners and implement the conduit search method for Drydock leases.
Ref T11694. Fixes T13212.
Test Plan:
- Called the API method from conduit and browsed lease queries from the UI.
- Used the new "ownerPHIDs" constraint via API console.
{F5963044}
Reviewers: yelirekim, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T11694, T13212
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16594
Summary:
Depends on D19672. Ref T13197. See PHI873. This writes a trivial log when we begin acting on a working copy and makes it look reasonable in the UI.
This is mostly just to prove that logging works properly.
Test Plan: {F5887697}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19673
Summary:
Depends on D19661. Ref T13077. See PHI840.
When a user edits a page normally, add a "Save as Draft" button. Much of this change is around making that button render and behave properly: it needs to be an `<input type="submit" ...>` so browsers submit it and we can figure out which button the user clicked.
Then there are a few minor rules:
- If you're editing a page which is already a draft, we only give you "Save as Draft". This makes edits to update/revise a draft more natural.
- Highlight "Publish" if it's a likely action that you might want to take.
Internally, there are two types of edits. Both types create a new version with the new content. However:
- A "content" edit sets the version shown on the live page to the newly-created version.
- A "draft" edit does not update the version shown on the live page.
Test Plan: Edited a published document, edited the draft. Published documents. Reverted documents.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19662
Summary:
Depends on D19659. Fixes T1894. Ref T13077. See PHI840.
- Add an EditEngine, although it currently supports no fields.
- Add (basic, top-level-only) commenting (we already had the table in the database).
This will probably create some issues. I'm most concerned about documents accumulating a ton of old, irrelevant comments over time which are hard to keep track of and no longer relevant. But I think this is probably a step forward in almost all cases, and a good thing on the balance.
This also moves us incrementally toward putting all editing on top of EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F5877347}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T1894
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19660
Summary:
Depends on D19656. Ref T13197. See PHI851.
- This class is now a real object, so get rid of the "Constants" part of the name.
- Rename it for greater consistency with other modern objects.
- Get rid of the `MODERN_` tag now that the old constants are gone.
Test Plan: Bunch of `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19657
Summary:
Ref T13195. Ref PHI851. Currently, checkbox constraints don't tell you what values are supported on the API page.
You can figure this out with "Inspect Element" or by viewing the source code, but just render a nice table instead.
Test Plan: {F5862969}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13195
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19641
Summary:
See PHI844. Ref T13189.
Add "Revision test plan" as an available field for Herald. This is a little niche -- and a little odd because it sticks around even if you fully disable test plans -- but probably broadly reasonable.
The existing "Revision summary" field counterintuitively included the test plan. Separate this out since it's now a separate field and the behavior was weird historic nonsense. I'll note this in the changelog.
Test Plan: Wrote a rule using both fields, verified they generated the expected values.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13189
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19623
Summary:
Depends on D19620. Ref T13077. This adds a "Publish" operation which points the current version at some historical version of the document -- not necessarily the most recent version. Newer versions become "drafts".
This is still quite rough and missing a lot of hinting in the UI, I'm just making it work so I can start making the UI understand it.
Test Plan: Used the "Publish" action to publish older versions of a document, saw the document revert. Many UI hints are missing and this operation is puzzling and not yet usable for normal users.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19621
Summary:
Ref T13077. This is mostly just a small cleanup change, even though the actual change is large.
We currently reference content and document objects from one another with `contentID` and `documentID`, but this means that `contentID` must be nullable. Switching to PHIDs allows the column to be non-nullable.
This also supports reorienting some current and future transactions around PHIDs, which is preferable for the API. In particular, I'm adding a "publish version X" transaction soon, and would rather callers pass a PHID than an ID or version number, since this will make the API more consistent and powerful.
Today, `contentID` gets used as a cheaty way to order documents by (content) edit time. Since PHIDs aren't orderable and stuff is going to become actually-revertible soon, replace this with an epoch timestamp.
Test Plan:
- Created, edited, moved, retitled, and deleted Phriction documents.
- Grepped for `documentID` and `contentID`.
- This probably breaks //something// but I'll be in this code for a bit and am likely to catch whatever breaks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19619
Summary: Ref T13077. There is no "PHUIDocumentView" so toss the "Pro" suffix from this classname.
Test Plan: Grepped for `PHUIDocumentView` and `PHUIDocumentViewPro`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19616
Summary:
Depends on D19609. Ref T13189. At some point, we switched from RemarkupEngine to RemarkupView and lost this piece of hack-magic.
Restore the hack-magic. It's still hack-magic instead of a real rule, but things are at least cleaner than they were before.
Test Plan: Viewed `auth.require-approval`, etc. Saw references to other config options linked properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13189
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19610
Summary:
Depends on D19605. Ref T13189. See PHI642. This adds a separate "Can Disable Users" capability, and makes the underlying transaction use it.
This doesn't actually let you weaken the permission, since all pathways need more permissions:
- `user.edit` needs CAN_EDIT.
- `user.disable/enable` need admin.
- Web UI workflow needs admin.
Upcoming changes will update these pathways.
Without additional changes, this does let you //strengthen// the permission.
This also fixes the inability to disable non-bot users via the web UI.
Test Plan:
- Set permission to "No One", tried to disable users. Got a tailored policy error.
- Set permission to "All Users", disabled/enabled a non-bot user.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13189
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19606
Summary:
Depends on D19579. Fixes T10003. These have been deprecated with a setup warning about their impending removal for about two and a half years.
Ref T13164. See PHI642. My overall goal here is to simplify how we handle transactions which have special policy behaviors. In particular, I'm hoping to replace `ApplicationTransactionEditor->requireCapabilities()` with a new, more clear policy check.
A problem with `requireCapabilities()` is that it doesn't actually enforce any policies in almost all cases: the default is "nothing", not CAN_EDIT. So it ends up looking like it's the right place to specialize policy checks, but it usually isn't.
For "Disable", I need to be able to weaken the check selectively (you can disable users if you have the permission, even if you can't edit them otherwise). We have a handful of other edits which work like this (notably, leaving and joining projects) but they're very rare.
Test Plan: Grepped for all removed classes. Edited a Maniphest task.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164, T10003
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19581
Summary:
Depends on D19577. Ref T13164. See PHI642. This adds modern transaction-oriented enable/disable support.
Currently, this also doesn't let you disable normal users even when you're an administrator. I'll refine the policy model later in this change series, since that's also the goal here (let users set "Can Disable Users" to some more broad set of users than "Administrators").
This also leaves us with two different edit pathways: the old UserEditor one and the new UserTransactionEditor one. The next couple diffs will redefine the other pathways in terms of this pathway.
Test Plan:
- Enabled/disabled a bot.
- Tried to disable another non-bot user. This isn't allowed yet, since even as an administrator you don't have CAN_EDIT on them and currently need it: right now, there's no way for a particular set of transactions to say they can move forward with reduced permissions.
- Tried to enable/disable myself. This isn't allowed since you can't enable/disable yourself.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19579
Summary:
Depends on D19576. Ref T13164. See PHI642. This adds an EditEngine for users and a `user.edit` modern API method.
For now, all it supports is editing real name, blurb, title, and icon (same as "Edit Profile" from the UI).
Test Plan:
- Edited my stuff via the new API method.
- Tried to edit another user, got rejected by policies.
- Tried to create a user, got rejected by policies.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19577
Summary:
Ref T13164. See PHI642. I'd like to provide a third-generation `user.edit` API endpoint and make `user.enable` and `user.disable` obsolete before meddling with policy details, even if it isn't full-fledged yet.
Users do already have a transactions table and a Transaction-based editor, but it's only used for editing title, real name, etc. All of these are custom fields, so their support comes in automatically through CustomField extension code.
Realign it for modular transactions so new code will be fully modern. There are no actual standalone transaction types yet so this diff is pretty thin.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `UserProfileEditor`.
- Edited a user's title/real name/icon.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19576
Summary:
Ref T13164. See PHI774. Fixes T12435.
Since Phriction is hierarchical, there isn't a super strong motivation to support Spaces: you can generally set policies on a small number of documents to get the desired effective policy behavior.
However, it still improves consistency and there's no reason //not// to support Spaces. In the case where you have some moderately weird/complex policy on one or more Spaces, using Spaces to define the policy behavior can make things a bit simpler and easier to understand.
This probably doesn't actually fix whatever the root problem in T12435 was (complicated, non-hierarchical access policies?). See also a bunch of discussion in T12442. So we might end up going beyond this to address other use cases, but I think this is reasonable regardless.
Test Plan: Created and edited Phriction documents and shifted them between Spaces. Searched by Space, etc.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13164, T12435
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19553
Summary:
See PHI774. Ref T13164. There is no reason projects //don't// support Spaces, just a vague concern that it's not hugely useful and might be a bit confusing.
However, it's at least somewhat useful (to improve consistency and reduce special casing) and doesn't necessarily seem more confusing than Projects are anyway. Support is trivial from a technical point of view, so just hook it up.
Test Plan: Created new projects, shifted projects between spaces. The support is all pretty much automatic.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19549
Summary:
Ref T13151. See PHI647. This allows us to link to any object by PHID, without disclosing information in the monogram (like `#fire-steve`).
This capability is relevant when building "secure mail", to provide a link to the object regardless of whether the monogram discloses information or not.
Test Plan: Visited `/object/D123/` (redirect), `/object/xyz/` (404), `/object/PHID-DREV-.../` (redirect).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13151
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19487
Summary:
Ref T13151. See PHI702. An install is interested in a "members of all projects" (vs "members of any project", which is currently implemented) rule.
Although this is fairly niche, I think it's reasonable and doesn't have much of a maintenance cost.
This could already be implemented as an extension, but it would have to copy/paste a bunch of code.
Test Plan:
- Ran unit tests.
- Used the UI to select this policy for a task, with various values. Joined/left projects to satisfy/fail the rule. Behavior seemed correct.
- Used the UI to select the existing policy rule ("any project"), joined/left projects to satisfy/fail the rule. Doesn't look like I broke anything.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13151
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19486
Summary:
Depends on D19443. Creates a workflow for populating the new identity table by iterating over commits, either one repo at a time or all at once. Locally caches identities to avoid fetching them `inf` times. An actual migration that invokes this workflow will come in another revision that won't land until at least next week.
Performance is ~2k commits in 4.9s on my local machine.
Test Plan: Ran locally a few times with a few different states of the `repository_identity` table.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: jcox, Korvin, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19446
Summary: Depends on D19429. Depends on D19423. Ref T12164. This creates new columns `authorIdentityPHID` and `committerIdentityPHID` on commit objects and starts populating them. Also adds the ability to explicitly set an Identity's assignee to "unassigned()" to null out an incorrect auto-assign. Adds more search functionality to identities. Also creates a daemon task for handling users adding new email address and attempts to associate unclaimed identities.
Test Plan: Imported some repos, watched new columns get populated. Added a new email address for a previous commit, saw daemon job run and assign the identity to the new user. Searched for identities in various and sundry ways.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T12164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19443
Summary: Depends on D19423. Ref T12164. Adds controllers capable of listing and editing `PhabricatorRepositoryIdentity` objects. Starts creating those objects when commits are parsed.
Test Plan: Reparsed some revisions, observed objects getting created in the database. Altered some `Identity` objects using the controllers and observed effects in the database. No attempts made to validate behavior under "challenging" author/committer strings.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T12164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19429
