Summary:
Moves all remaining mail handling into ReplyHandlers.
Farewell, `getPhabricatorToInformation()`! You were a bad method and no one liked you.
Ref T1205.
Test Plan:
- Used test console to send mail to Revisions, Tasks, Conpherences and Commits (these all actually work).
- Used test console to send mail to Requests, Macros, Questions and Mocks (these accept the mail but don't do anything with it, but didn't do anything before either).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5953
Summary: This doesn't do anything, but touches a bunch of files so I split it out to reduce the size of the next diff. Basically, make `MailReceiver` classes responsible for loading their application objects. Ref T1205.
Test Plan: Inspection / next diff / code is not reached.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5941
Summary:
Ref T1205. Continuation of D5915.
Currently, `PhabricatorMetaMTAReceivedMail` has //all// the logic for routing mail. In particular:
- New mail receivers in applications must edit it.
- Mail receivers don't drop out when applications are uninstalled.
Applications have some logic in subclasses of `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler`, but this class is a bit of a mess. It is also heavily based on the assumption that mail receivers are objects (like revisions), but this is not true in at least two cases today (creating new tasks with `bugs@`, creating a new Conpherence thread) and likely other cases in the future (e.g., revision-by-mail).
Move this logic into a new `PhabricatorMailReceiver` classtree. This is similar to `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler` but a bit cleaner and more general. I plan to heavily reduce the responsibilities of `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler` or possibly eliminate it entirely.
For now, the new classtree doesn't do much of interest. The only behavioral change this diff causes is that Phabricator will now reject mail to an application when that application is uninstalled.
I also moved all the `ReplyHandler` classes into `mail/` directories in their respective applications.
Test Plan: Unit tests, used receive test to route mail to various objects.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: Afaque_Hussain, edward, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5922
Summary:
Unmuck almost all of the we-sort-of-have-viewers-some-of-the-time mess.
There are a few notable cases here:
- I used Omnipotent users when indexing objects for search. I think this is correct; we do policy filtering when showing results.
- I cheated in a bad way in the Remarkup object rule, but fixing this requires fixing all the PhabricatorRemarkupEngine callsites (there are 85). I'll do that in the next diff.
- I cheated in a few random places, like when sending mail about package edits. These aren't a big deal.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for all PhabricatorObjectHandleData references.
- Gave them viewers.
Reviewers: vrana
Reviewed By: vrana
CC: aran, edward
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5151
Summary:
This commit doesn't change license of any file. It just makes the license implicit (inherited from LICENSE file in the root directory).
We are removing the headers for these reasons:
- It wastes space in editors, less code is visible in editor upon opening a file.
- It brings noise to diff of the first change of any file every year.
- It confuses Git file copy detection when creating small files.
- We don't have an explicit license header in other files (JS, CSS, images, documentation).
- Using license header in every file is not obligatory: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new.
This change is approved by Alma Chao (Lead Open Source and IP Counsel at Facebook).
Test Plan: Verified that the license survived only in LICENSE file and that it didn't modify externals.
Reviewers: epriestley, davidrecordon
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T2035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3886
Summary:
We need to go slightly farther to stub reply handler functionality for Ponder in at least some configurations, where we rely on the presence of a unique random key to generate per-object or per-object+user reply addresses.
This should probably be formalized in an interface since it's currently pretty ad-hoc.
Test Plan:
- Made comments in Ponder under a per-user email configuration.
- Ran migration, verified mail keys were generated.
- Ran migration again (with --apply), verified existing questions were skipped.
- Created a new question, verified mail key generation.
Reviewers: pieter
Reviewed By: pieter
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3665
