Summary:
Ref T10334. Partly, this just improves visual feedback for all drag operations. After D20242, we can have cases where you (for example) drag a low-priority node to a very tall column on a priority-ordered workboard. In this case, the actual dashed-border-drop-target may not be on screen.
We might make the column scroll or put some kind of hint in the UI in this case, but an easy starting point is just to make the "yes, you're targeting this column" state a bit more clear.
Test Plan: Dragged tasks between columns, saw the border higlight on the target columns. This is very tricky to take a screenshot of.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10334
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20245
Summary:
Ref T13259. An install provided feedback that it wasn't obvious you could click the buttons in this UI.
Make it more clear that these are clickable buttons.
Test Plan:
{F6251585}
{F6251586}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13259
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20238
Summary:
Ref T13249. See PHI810. We currently show availability dots in some interfaces (timeline, mentions) but not others (typeheads/tokenizers).
They're potentially quite useful in tokenizers, e.g. when assigning tasks to someone or requesting reviews. Show them in more places.
(The actual rendering here isn't terribly clean, and it would be great to try to unify all these various behaviors some day.)
Test Plan:
{F6212044}
{F6212045}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20173
Summary:
Ref T13249. See PHI1059. This allows "locked" in `maniphest.statuses` to specify that either "comments" are locked (current behavior, advisory, overridable by users with edit permission, e.g. for calming discussion on a contentious issue or putting a guard rail on things); or "edits" are locked (hard lock, only task owner can edit things).
Roughly, "comments" is a soft/advisory lock. "edits" is a hard/strict lock. (I think both types of locks have reasonable use cases, which is why I'm not just making locks stronger across the board.)
When "edits" are locked:
- The edit policy looks like "no one" to normal callers.
- In one special case, we sneak the real value through a back channel using PolicyCodex in the specific narrow case that you're editing the object. Otherwise, the policy selector control incorrectly switches to "No One".
- We also have to do a little more validation around applying a mixture of status + owner transactions that could leave the task uneditable.
For now, I'm allowing you to reassign a hard-locked task to someone else. If you get this wrong, we can end up in a state where no one can edit the task. If this is an issue, we could respond in various ways: prevent these edits; prevent assigning to disabled users; provide a `bin/task reassign`; uh maybe have a quorum convene?
Test Plan:
- Defined "Soft Locked" and "Hard Locked" statues.
- "Hard Locked" a task, hit errors (trying to unassign myself, trying to hard lock an unassigned task).
- Saw nice new policy guidance icon in header.
{F6210362}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20165
Summary:
Ref T13249. See PHI774. When users follow an email login link ("Forgot password?", "Send Welcome Email", "Send a login link to your email address.", `bin/auth recover`), we send them to a password reset flow if an install uses passwords.
If an install does not use passwords, we previously dumped them unceremoniously into the {nav Settings > External Accounts} UI with no real guidance about what they were supposed to do. Since D20094 we do a slightly better job here in some cases. Continue improving this workflow.
This adds a page like "Reset Password" for "Hey, You Should Probably Link An Account, Here's Some Options".
Overall, this stuff is still pretty rough in a couple of areas that I imagine addressing in the future:
- When you finish linking, we still dump you back in Settings. At least we got you to link things. But better would be to return you here and say "great job, you're a pro".
- This UI can become a weird pile of buttons in certain configs and generally looks a little unintentional. This problem is shared among all the "linkable" providers, and the non-login link flow is also weird.
So: step forward, but more work to be done.
Test Plan: {F6211115}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20170
Summary: Ref T13249. Poll for Duo updates in the background so we can automatically update the UI when the user clicks the mobile phone app button.
Test Plan: Hit a Duo gate, clicked "Approve" in the mobile app, saw the UI update immediately.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13249
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20169
Summary:
Ref T13244. See PHI1059. When you lock a task, users who can edit the task can currently override the lock by using "Edit Task" if they confirm that they want to do this.
Mark these edits with an emblem, similar to the "MFA" and "Silent" emblems, so it's clear that they may have bent the rules.
Also, make the "MFA" and "Silent" emblems more easily visible.
Test Plan:
Edited a locked task, overrode the lock, got marked for it.
{F6195005}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: aeiser
Maniphest Tasks: T13244
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20131
Summary:
Depends on D20122. Fixes T8029. Adds an "Approve User" action to the "Manage" page.
Users are normally approved from the "Approval Queue", but if you click into a user's profile to check them out in more detail it kind of dead ends you right now. I've occasionally hit this myself, and think this workflow is generally reasonable enough to support upstream.
Test Plan: {F6193742}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T8029
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20123
Summary:
Depends on D20026. Ref T13222. Ref T13231. The primary change here is that we'll no longer send you an SMS if you hit an MFA gate without CSRF tokens.
Then there's a lot of support for genralizing into Duo (and other push factors, potentially), I'll annotate things inline.
Test Plan: Implemented Duo, elsewhere.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13231, T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20028
Summary:
Depends on D20016. Ref T920. This does nothing interesting on its own since the TOTP provider has no guidance/warnings, but landing it separately helps to simplify an upcoming SMS diff.
SMS will have these guidance messages:
- "Administrator: you haven't configured any mailer which can send SMS, like Twilio."
- "Administrator: SMS is weak."
- "User: you haven't configured a contact number."
Test Plan: {F6151283} {F6151284}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20017
Summary:
Depends on D19906. Ref T13222. This isn't going to win any design awards, but make the "wait" and "answered" elements a little more clear.
Ideally, the icon parts could be animated Google Authenticator-style timers (but I think we'd need to draw them in a `<canvas />` unless there's some clever trick that I don't know) or maybe we could just have the background be like a "water level" that empties out. Not sure I'm going to actually write the JS for either of those, but the UI at least looks a little more intentional.
Test Plan:
{F6070914}
{F6070915}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19908
Summary:
Ref T13222. Fixes T12588. See PHI683. In several cases, we present the user with a choice between multiple major options: Alamnac service types, Drydock blueprint types, Repository VCS types, Herald rule types, etc.
Today, we generally do this with radio buttons and a "Submit" button. This isn't terrible, but often it means users have to click twice (once on the radio; once on submit) when a single click would be sufficient. The radio click target can also be small.
In other cases, we have a container with a link and we'd like to link the entire container: notifications, the `/drydock/` console, etc. We'd like to just link the entire container, but this causes some problems:
- It's not legal to link block eleements like `<a><div> ... </div></a>` and some browsers actually get upset about it.
- We can `<a><span> ... </span></a>` instead, then turn the `<span>` into a block element with CSS -- and this sometimes works, but also has some drawbacks:
- It's not great to do that for screenreaders, since the readable text in the link isn't necessarily very meaningful.
- We can't have any other links inside the element (e.g., details or documentation).
- We can `<form><button> ... </button></form>` instead, but this has its own set of problems:
- You can't right-click to interact with a button in the same way you can with a link.
- Also not great for screenreaders.
Instead, try adding a `linked-container` behavior which just means "when users click this element, pretend they clicked the first link inside it".
This gives us natural HTML (real, legal HTML with actual `<a>` tags) and good screenreader behavior, but allows the effective link target to be visually larger than just the link.
If no issues crop up with this, I'd plan to eventually use this technique in more places (Repositories, Herald, Almanac, Drydock, Notifications menu, etc).
Test Plan:
{F6053035}
- Left-clicked and command-left-clicked the new JS fanciness, got sensible behaviors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19855
Summary: See PHI977. Ref T13216. Some text, like long package names, may overflow hovercards. Add overflow CSS behaviors to remedy this.
Test Plan:
Before:
{F6012699}
After:
{F6012700}
(You can use `/search/hovercard/` to render hovercards in a handy standalone way.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19809
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:
Ref T13195. If a Phriction page begins with a code block, the `clear: both;` currently makes it clear the action list.
Instead, use table-cell layout on desktops.
Test Plan: Viewed a Phriction page with an initial code block on desktop/tablet/mobile/printable layouts. Now got more sensible layouts in all cases.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: GoogleLegacy
Maniphest Tasks: T13195
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19649
Summary: Depends on D19621. Ref T13077. Fixes T4815. This adds previous/current/next/draft buttons and makes navigation between unpublished and published versions of a document more clear.
Test Plan: {F5841997}
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T4815
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19622
Summary:
Depends on D19616. Ref T13077. Fixes T8172. In the last round of design updates, a lot of actions got stuffed into "Actions" menus.
I never really got used to these and think they're a net usability loss, and broadly agree with the feedback in T8172. I'd generally like to move back toward a state where actions are available on the page, not hidden in a menu.
For now, just put a curtain view on these pages. This could be refined later (e.g., stick this menu to the right hand side of the screen) depending on where other Phriction changes go.
(Broadly, I'm also not satisfied with where we ended up on the fixed-width pages like Diffusion > Manage, Config, and Instances. In contrast, I //do// like where we ended up with Phortune in terms of overall design. I anticipate revisiting some of this stuff eventually.)
Test Plan:
- Looked at Phriction pages on desktop/tablet/mobile/printable -- actions are now available on the page.
- Looked at other DocumentView pages (like Phame blogs) -- no changes for now.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13077, T8172
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19617
Summary:
Ref T13187. See PHI836. The "action" comment actions in Differential (Accept, Reject, etc) render a single line of descriptive text. This is currently slightly misaligned.
Give it similar sizing information to the label element to the left, so it lines up properly.
Test Plan:
Note that "Request Review" and "This revision will be..." are now aligned:
{F5828077}
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13187
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19600
Summary:
Depends on D19551. Ref T13164. Projects use a special kind of header setup that has a more specific CSS rule to make content black. Add an even more specific rule to make it red.
(This could probably be disentangled a bit and isn't necessarily the cleanest fix, but I poked at it for a few minutes and didn't come up with anything cleaner.)
Test Plan: Viewed projects in spaces, saw the space names colored red properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19552
Summary:
Fixes T13148. Ref T13105. The new document rendering engine for images let them overflow the UI bounds.
Add `max-width: 100%;` to keep them contained.
Test Plan:
- Viewed a very wide image in Safari, Firefox and Chrome. Saw sensible rendering.
- Also viewed a normal image, saw normal behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley, avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T13148, T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19457
Summary:
See PHI624. Some of the mobile navigation and breadcrumbs in support pacts aren't as good as they could be.
In particular, we generally collapse crumbs on mobile to just the first and last crumbs. The first crumb is the application; the last is the current page.
On `/PHIxxx` pages, the first crumb isn't very useful since the Support landing page is two levels up: you usually want to go back to the pact, not all the way back to the Support landing page.
We also don't need the space since the last crumb (`PHIxxx`) is always small.
Allow Support and other similar applications to tailor the crumb behavior more narrowly if they end up in situations like this.
Test Plan:
- With an additional change to instances (see next diff), viewed a support issue page (`/PHI123`) on mobile and desktop.
- Saw a link directly back to the pact on both mobile and desktop.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19438
Summary:
Ref T13127. Users with red/green colorblindness may have difficulty using this element in its current incarnation.
We could give it different behavior if the "Accessibility" option is set for red/green colorblind users, but try a one-size-fits-all approach since the red/green aren't wholly clear anwyay.
Test Plan: {F5530050}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13127
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19385
Summary: Ref T13110. See PHI230. Show revision sizes on a roughly logarithmic scale from 1-7 stars. See D16322 for theorycrafting on this element.
Test Plan: Looked at some revisions, saw plausible-looking size markers.
Maniphest Tasks: T13110
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19294
Summary:
Ref T13105. This adds various small client-side improvements to document rendering.
- In the menu, show which renderer is in use.
- Make linking to lines work.
- Make URIs persist information about which rendering engine is in use.
- Improve the UI feedback for transitions between document types.
- Load slower documents asynchronously by default.
- Discard irrelevant requests if you spam the view menu.
Test Plan: Loaded files, linked to lines, swapped between modes, copy/pasted URLs.
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19256
Summary: Ref T13105. Allow normal text files to be rendered as documents, and add a "source code" rendering engine.
Test Plan: Viewed some source code.
Reviewers: mydeveloperday
Reviewed By: mydeveloperday
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19254
Summary:
Depends on D19252. Ref T13105. This very roughly renders Jupyter notebooks.
It's probably better than showing the raw JSON, but not by much.
Test Plan:
- Viewed various notebooks with various cell types, including markdown, code, stdout, stderr, images, HTML, and Javascript.
- HTML and Javascript are not live-fired since they're wildly dangerous.
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19253
Summary:
Depends on D19251. Ref T13105. This adds rendering engine support for PDFs.
It doesn't actually render them, it just renders a link which you can click to view them in a new window. This is much easier than actually rendering them inline and at least 95% as good most of the time (and probably more-than-100%-as-good some of the time).
This makes PDF a viewable MIME type by default and adds a narrow CSP exception for it. See also T13112.
Test Plan:
- Viewed PDFs in Files, got a link to view them in a new tab.
- Clicked the link in Safari, Chrome, and Firefox; got inline PDFs.
- Verified primary CSP is still `object-src 'none'` with `curl ...`.
- Interacted with the vanilla lightbox element to check that it still works.
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19252
Summary:
Ref T13105. Although Markdown is trickier to deal with, we can handle Remarkup easily.
This may need some support for encoding options.
Test Plan: Viewed `.remarkup` files, got remarkup document presentation by default. Viewed other text files, got an option to render as remarkup.
Reviewers: avivey
Reviewed By: avivey
Subscribers: mydeveloperday, avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19251
Summary:
Depends on D19238. Ref T13105. Give document engines some reasonable automatic support for degrading gracefully when someone tries to hexdump a 100MB file or similar.
Also, make "Video" sort above "Audio" for files which could be rendered either way.
Test Plan: Viewed audio, video, image, and other files. Adjusted limits and saw full, partial, and fallback/error rendering.
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19239
Summary: Depends on D19237. Ref T13105. This adds a (very basic) "Hexdump" engine (mostly just to have a second option to switch to) and a selector for choosing view modes.
Test Plan: Viewed some files, switched between audio/video/image/hexdump.
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19238
Summary:
Ref T13105. This change begins modularizing document rendering. I'm starting in Files since it's the use case with the smallest amount of complexity.
Currently, we hard-coding the inline rendering for images, audio, and video. Instead, use the modular engine pattern to make rendering flexible and extensible.
There aren't any options for switching modes yet and none of the renderers do anything fancy. This API is also probably very unstable.
Test Plan: Viewwed images, audio, video, and other files. Saw reasonable renderings, with "nothing can render this" for any other file type.
Maniphest Tasks: T13105
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19237
Summary: Ref T13053. See PHI126. Add an explicit "Mute" action to kill mail and notifications for a particular object.
Test Plan: Muted and umuted an object while interacting with it. Saw mail route appropriately.
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19033
Summary:
See PHI325. When a transaction group in Differential (or Pholio) only has an inline comment, it renders with a "V" caret but no actual dropdown menu.
This caret renders in a "disabled" color, but the color is "kinda grey". The "active" color is "kinda grey with a dab of blue". Here's what they look like today:
{F5401581}
Just remove it.
Test Plan: Viewed one of these, no longer saw the inactive caret.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18963
Summary:
Depends on D18866. Ref T13025. Fixes T12415. This makes the old "Add Comment" action work, and adds support for a new "Set description to" action (possibly, I could imagine "append description" being useful some day, maybe).
The implementation is just a `<textarea />`, not a whole fancy remarkup box with `[Bold] [Italic] ...` buttons, preview, typeaheads, etc. It would be nice to enrich this eventually but doing the rendering in pure JS is currently very involved.
This requires a little bit of gymnastics to get the transaction populated properly, and adds some extra validation since we need some code there anyway.
Test Plan:
- Changed the description of a task via bulk editor.
- Added a comment to a task via bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T12415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18867
Summary:
Depends on D18862. See PHI173. Ref T13025. Fixes T10005. This redefines bulk edits in terms of EditEngine fields, rather than hard-coding the whole thing.
Only text fields -- and, specifically, only the "Title" field -- are supported after this change. Followup changes will add more bulk edit parameter types and broader field support.
However, the title field now works without any Maniphest-specific code, outside of the small amount of binding code in the `ManiphestBulkEditor` subclass.
Test Plan: Used the bulk edit workflow to change the titles of tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18863
Summary:
Depends on D18805. Ref T13025. Fixes T10268.
Instead of using a list of IDs for the bulk editor, power it with SearchEngine queries. This gives us the full power of SearchEngine and lets us use a query key instead of a list of 20,000 IDs to avoid issues with URL lengths.
Also, split it into a base `BulkEngine` and per-application subclasses. This moves us toward T10005 and universal support for bulk operations.
Also:
- Renames most of "batch" to "bulk": we're curently inconsitent about this, I like "bulk" better since I think it's more clear if you don't regularly interact with `.bat` files, and newer stuff mostly uses "bulk".
- When objects in the result set can't be edited because you don't have permission, show the status more clearly.
This probably breaks some stuff a bit since I refactored so heavily, but it seems mostly OK from poking around. I'll clean up anything I missed in followups to deal with remaining items on T13025.
Test Plan:
{F5302300}
- Bulk edited from Maniphest.
- Bulk edited from a workboard (no more giant `?ids=....` in the URL).
- Hit most of the error conditions, I think?
- Clicked the "Cancel" button.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10268
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18806
Summary:
Ref T13025. See PHI50. Fixes T11286. Ref T10005. Begin modernizing the bulk editor.
For T10005 ("move the bulk editor to modern infrastructure"), rewrite the rendering of the editable set so that it is application-agnostic and can work with any kind of object.
For T11286 ("let users de-select items in the working set"), make the working set editable.
Test Plan:
{F5302158}
- Deselected some objects, applied an edit, saw the edit apply to only selected objects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T11286, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18805
Summary:
Ref T10233. See PHI231. When users ignore the `arc land` prompt about bad revision states, make it explicitly clear in the transaction log that they broke the rules.
You can currently figure this out by noticing that there's no "This revision is accepted and ready to land." message, but it's unrealistic to expect non-expert users to look for the //absence// of a message to indicate something, and this state change is often relevant.
Test Plan: {F5302351}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10233
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18808
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary: Hide navbar, and make curtain behave like on a phone, when printing.
Test Plan: {F5197340}
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18583
Summary: Adds some side margin here.
Test Plan: error out a form field in a white box
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18571
Summary: This simplifies EditEngine pages in general by removing the dual header, and extending to allow setting of a custom PHUIHeaderView if needed (like settings).
Test Plan:
Review all settings pages, review task, project pages. This should all be fine, but is a big change maybe some layouts I'm not considering. Tested these all mobile, destkop as well.
{F5166181}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18527
Summary: Updates settings panel UI for new white box, cleans up other various UI nitpicks.
Test Plan: Click through each setting that had a local setting page. Edit Engine pages will follow up on another diff.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18526
Summary: Simplifies the Repository Management pages to the new fixed column layout. I've also moved "Status" into the Basics page, which feels better, and moved "Documentation" as a nav item to a button in the header. This removed "action list" and "curtain view" from the management panels and uses the new bits from Config/Phacility. Undecided if the icons should stay or go for the nav. Left them in for Diffusion. I want to update the EditEngine pages to display in this UI and not leave the portal, but I haven't dug into that this page. I'm a bit worried it will not easily be possible.
Test Plan:
Generate a svn, git, hg repository, test each of the new pages and each of the new buttons. Activate, deactivate, etc.
{F5164674}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18523
Summary:
This is a full UI pass at a cleaner "Config" application. The main idea is to simplify the UI, center it, and have a different feel than other UI, a sort of "manage" UI theme for objects with loads of settings. Also adds a new minimalistic "WHITE_CONFIG" box type which may get re-used in Diffusion settings. This is a 90% pass, I'll have a few follow up diffs. Specifically:
- Build breadcrumbs as a flexible UI to go into headers.
- One click ObjectItemView option, for hover states.
- Sidenav doesn't always select (AphrontFilter issue)
- Mobile touchups, though it's pretty reasonable.
Test Plan:
Click through every page here, edit options, see new navigation UI. Test a few various setup issue layouts including fatals.
{F5163228}
{F5163229}
{F5163230}
{F5163231}
{F5163232}
{F5163233}
{F5163234}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18519
Summary: Custom icons here aren't being set. Also use more standard `tt` UI.
Test Plan: Set an icon, see set Icon.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18522
Summary: I can't seem to blame any rational for this, these should vertical align.
Test Plan: Project headers with watching buttons.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18520
Summary: Only for grey buttons, but can expand. Sets a selected class.
Test Plan: Review new changes in UIExamples.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18501
