Summary:
Ref T9908. Simplify some of the policies here:
- If you can edit an application (currently, always "Administrators"), you can view and edit all of its forms.
- You must be able to edit an application to create new forms.
- Improve some error messages.
- Get about halfway through letting users reorder forms in the "Create" menu if they want to sort by something weird since it'll need schema changes and I can do them all in one go here.
Test Plan:
- Tried to create and edit forms as an unprivileged user.
- Created and edited forms as an administrator.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14700
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. Fixes T5622. This allows you to copy some fields (projects, subscribers, custom fields, some per-application) from another object when creating a new object by passing the `?template=xyz` parameter.
Extend "copy" support to work with all custom fields.
Test Plan:
- Created new pastes, packages, tasks using `?template=...`
- Viewed new template docs page.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5622, T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14699
Summary:
Ref T9908. When there are custom / renamed / policy considerations for applications, respect them in the quick create menu.
This has some performance implications, in that it makes every page slower by two queries (and potentially more, soon), which is quite bad. I have some ideas to mitigate this, but it's not the end of the world to eat these queries for now.
Test Plan: {F1017316}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14693
Summary:
Ref T9908.
- You should not need edit permission on a task in order to comment on it.
- At least for now, ignore any customization in Conduit and Stacked Actions. These UIs always use the full edit form as it's written in the application.
Test Plan:
- Verified a non-editor can now comment on tasks they can see.
- Verified a user still can't use an edit form they can't see.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14691
Summary:
Ref T9132. Fixes T4580. Thhat might actually have been fixed a while ago or something since it describes a buggy/bad interaction which doesn't reproduce for me at HEAD.
This saves and restores all the stacked actions (subscribers, projects, etc) so that you don't lose anything if you close a window by accident.
Test Plan:
Added a bunch of actions in various states, reloaded the page, draft stuck around.
Submitted form, actions didn't stick around anymore.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4580, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14675
Summary:
Ref T9132. This is kind of a mess because the tokenizer rewrite left rendering tokenizers in Javascript a little rough. This causes bugs like icons not showing up on tokens in the "Policy" dialog, which there's a task for somewhere I think.
I think I've fixed it enough that the beahavior is now correct (i.e., icons show up properly), but some of the code is a bit iffy. I'll eventually clean this up properly, but it's fairly well contained for now.
Test Plan:
- Reassigned a task.
- Put a task up for grabs.
- No reassign on closed tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14669
Summary: Ref T9132. This still has a lot of rough edges but the basics seem to work OK.
Test Plan: {F1012627}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14653
Summary:
Ref T9132. Fixes T5031. This approximately implements the plan described in T5031#67988:
When we recieve a preview request, don't write a draft if the form is from a version of the object before the last update the viewer made.
This should fix the race-related (?) zombie draft comments that sometimes show up.
I just added a new object for this stuff to make it easier to do stacked actions (or whatever we end up with) a little later, since I needed to do some schema adjustments anyway.
Test Plan:
- Typed some text.
- Reloaded page.
- Draft stayed there.
- Tried real hard to get it to ghost by submitting stuff in multiple windows and typing a lot and couldn't, although I didn't bother specifically narrowing down the race condition.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5031, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14640
Summary:
Ref T9132. This just replaces the "Add Comment" form in Paste with a generic flow in EditEngine.
No actual field-awareness or action stacking or anything quite yet, but that will come in a bit. This mildly regresses drafts (which don't seem like a big deal for Pastes). I'll hook those up again in the next diff, but I want to build them in a better way that will work with multiple actions in a generic way, and solve T5031.
Big practical advantage here is that applications don't need copy/pasted preview controllers.
Test Plan:
- Saw previews.
- Added comments.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14637
Summary:
Ref T9132. Give most standard custom fields reasonable Conduit support so you can use the new `application.x` endpoints to set them.
Major missing field type is dates, again.
Test Plan: Used Conduit to set various custom fields on a package.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14635
Summary:
Ref T9132. This allows you to prefill custom fields with `?custom.x.y=value`, for most types of custom fields.
Dates (which are substantially more complicated) aren't supported. I'll just do those once the dust settles. Other types should work, I think.
Test Plan:
- Verified custom fields appear on "HTTP Parameters" help UI.
- Used `?x=y` to prefill custom fields on edit form.
- Performed various normal edits.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14634
Summary:
Ref T9132. This is a bit more cleanup to make adding CustomField support easier.
Right now, both `EditField` and `EditType` can actually generate a transaction. This doesn't matter too much in practice today, but gets a little more complicated a couple of diffs from now with CustomField stuff.
Instead, always use `EditType` to generate the transaction. In the future, this should give us less total code and make more things work cleanly by default.
Test Plan: Used web UI and Conduit to make various edits to pastes, including doing race-condition tests on "Projects".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14607
Summary: Ref T9132. I had some hacks in place for dealing with Edge/Subscribers stuff. Clean that up so it's structured a little better.
Test Plan:
- Edited subscribers and projects.
- Verified things still show up in Conduit.
- Made concurrent edits (added a project in one window, removed it in another window, got a clean result with a correct merge of the two edits).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14601
Summary:
Ref T9132. This is a quality-of-life improvement for new `application.edit` endpoints.
Instead of strictly requiring PHIDs, allow IDs or monograms. This primarily makes these endpoints easier to test and use.
Test Plan: Edited objects via API by passing IDs, PHIDs and monograms.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14600
Summary:
Ref T9132. Currently, EditEngine had some branchy-`instanceof` code like this:
```
if ($object instanceof Whatever) {
do_magic();
}
if ($object instanceof SomethingElse) {
do_other_magic();
}
```
...where `Whatever` and `SomethingElse` are first-party applications like ProjectsInterface and SubscribersInterface.
This kind of code is generally bad because third-parties can't add new stuff, and it suggest something is kind of hacky in its architecture. Ideally, we would eventually get rid of almost all of this.
T9789 is a similar discussion of this for the next layer down (`TransactionEditor`) and plans to get rid of branchy-instanceofs there too.
Since I'm about to add more stuff here (for Custom Fields), split it out first so I'm not digging us any deeper than I already dug us.
Broadly, this allows third-party extensions to add fields to every EditEngine UI if they want, like we do for Policies, Subscribers, Projects and Comments today (and CustomFields soon).
Test Plan:
{F1007575}
- Observed that all fields still appear on the form and seem to work correctly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14599
Summary:
Ref T9132.
Let configurations be enabled/disabled. This doesn't do much right now.
Let configurations be marked as default entries in the application "Create" menu. This makes them show up in the application in a dropdown, so you can replace the default form and/or provide several forms.
In Maniphest, we'll do this to provide a menu something like this:
- New Bug Report
- New Feature Request
- ADVANCED TASK CREATION!!11~ (only available for Community members)
Test Plan: {F1005679}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14584
Summary: This makes document views a little more automatic, and a little more style to the page. The Document itself remains on a pure white centered background, but footer and preceeding objects go back to the original body color. This provides a bit more depth and separation over content and definitions/comments.
Test Plan:
Tested Phriction, Diviner, Legalpad, Phame, Email Commands, HTTP Commands, with and without a footer.
{F1005853}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14582
Summary:
Ref T9132. This adds an automatic "Comments" field, like the Subscribers/Projects/Policy fields.
The primary goals here are:
- Allow users to make comments via Conduit.
- In the future, get stackable action support.
As a side effect, this also allows you to put comments on create forms. This is a little silly but seems fine, and may be relevant on edit forms (which I'm not 100% sure how I want to handle yet). I've just hidden them by default for now.
Test Plan:
{F976036}
{F976037}
{F976038}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14515
Summary:
Ref T9132. Allows fields to be locked (shown, but not modifiable) and hidden (not shown).
In both cases, default values are still respected.
This lets you do things like create a form that generates objects with specific projects, policies, etc.
Test Plan:
- Set defaults.
- Locked and hid a bunch of fields.
- Created new objects using the resulting form.
{F975801}
{F975802}
{F975803}
{F975804}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14509
Summary: Ref T9132. Allow form configurations to include defaults (like default projects, spaces, policies, etc).
Test Plan:
Defaulted "Language" to "Rainbow", plus other adjustments:
{F975746}
{F975747}
{F975748}
{F975749}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14508
Summary:
Ref T9132. This just makes edited forms do //something//, albeit not anything very useful yet.
You can now edit a form and:
- Retitle it;
- add a preamble (instructions on top of the form); and
- reorder the form's fields.
Test Plan:
{F974632}
{F974633}
{F974634}
{F974635}
{F974636}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14503
Summary:
Fixes T9799. Currently, if you can't see an application like Paste, we fatal when trying to generate a result for `conduit.query`, because the new EditEngine-based `paste.edit` method doesn't "know" that it's a "Paste" method.
Straighten this out, and use policies and queries a little more correctly/consistently.
Test Plan:
- Called `conduit.query` as a user who does not have permission to use Paste.
- Before change: fatal.
- After change: results, excluding "paste.*" methods.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: cburroughs
Maniphest Tasks: T9799
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14492
Summary: Fixes T9772. We now need an EditEngineConfiguration to do interesting things with EditEngine, but this public API wasn't properly making sure we have one.
Test Plan: Called `conduit.query` from web console. Fatal prior to patch; success afterward.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9772
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14475
Summary:
Ref T9132. This diff doesn't do anything interesting, it just lays the groundwork for more interesting future diffs.
Broadly, the idea here is to let you create multiple views of each edit form. For example, we might create several different "Create Task" forms, like:
- "New Bug Report"
- "New Feature Request"
These would be views of the "Create Task" form, but with various adjustments:
- A form might have additional instructions ("how to file a good bug report").
- A form might have prefilled values for some fields (like particular projects, subscribers, or policies).
- A form might have some fields locked (so they can not be edited) or hidden.
- A form might have a different field order.
- A form might have a limited visibility policy, so only some users can access it.
This diff adds a new storage object (`EditEngineConfiguration`) to keep track of all those customizations and represent "a form which has been configured to look and work a certain way".
This doesn't let these configurations do anything useful/interesting, and you can't access them directly yet, it's just all the boring plumbing to enable more interesting behavior in the future.
Test Plan:
ApplicationEditor forms now let you manage available forms and edit the current form:
{F959025}
There's a new (bare bones) list of all available engines:
{F959030}
And if you jump into an engine, you can see all the forms for it:
{F959038}
The actual form configurations have standard detail/edit pages. The edit pages are themselves driven by ApplicationEditor, of course, so you can edit the form for editing forms.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14453
Summary: Ref T9132. This allows you to prefill EditEngine forms with stuff like `?subscribers=epriestley`, and we'll figure out what you mean.
Test Plan:
- Did `/?subscribers=...` with various values (good, bad, mis-capitalized).
- Did `/?projects=...` with various values (good, bad, mis-capitalized).
- Reviewed documentation.
- Reviewed {nav Config > HTTP Parameter Types}.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14404
Summary: Ref T9132. This just moves code around, breaks it up into some smaller chunks, tries to reduce duplication, and adds a touch of documentation.
Test Plan: Created and edited pastes.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14398
Summary: Use in MailCommands and HTTP Parameters
Test Plan: Tested MailCommands in Paste, HTTP Parameters in Paste, Legalpad, Diviner. Mobile and Desktop breakpoints.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14397
Summary:
Ref T5873. Ref T9132. This is really rough and feels pretty flimsy at the edges (missing validation, generality, modularity, clean error handling, etc) but gets us most of the way toward generating plausible "whatever.edit" Conduit API methods from EditEngines.
These methods are full-power methods which can do everything the edit form can, automatically support the same range of operations, and update when new fields are added.
Test Plan:
- Used new `paste.edit` to create a new Paste.
- Used new `paste.edit` to update an existing paste.
- Applied a variety of different transactions.
- Hit a reasonable set of errors.
{F941144}
{F941145}
{F941146}
{F941147}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14393
Summary:
Ref T9132. Although forms do generally support prefilling right now, you have to guess how to do it.
Provide an explicit action showing you which values are supported and how to prefill them. This is generated automatically when an application switches to ApplicationEditor.
Test Plan:
{F939804}
{F939805}
{F939806}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14392
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T4768. This is a rough v0 of ApplicationEditor, which replaces the edit workflow in Paste.
This mostly looks and works like ApplicationSearch, and is heavily modeled on it.
Roughly, we define a set of editable fields and the ApplicationEditor stuff builds everything else.
This has no functional changes, except:
- I removed "Fork Paste" since I don't think it's particularly useful now that pastes are editable. We could restore it if users miss it.
- Subscribers are now editable.
- Form field order is a little goofy (this will be fixed in a future diff).
- Subscribers and projects are now race-resistant.
The race-resistance works like this: instead of submitting just the new value ("subscribers=apple, dog") and doing a set operation ("set subscribers = apple, dog"), we submit the old and new values ("original=apple" + "new=apple, dog") then apply the user's changes as an add + remove ("add=dog", "remove=<none>"). This means that two users who do "Edit Paste" at around the same time and each add or remove a couple of subscribers won't overwrite each other, unless they actually add or remove the exact same subscribers (in which case their edits legitimately conflict). Previously, the last user to save would win, and whatever was in their field would overwrite the prior state, potentially losing the first user's edits.
Test Plan:
- Created pastes.
- Created pastes via API.
- Edited pastes.
- Edited every field.
- Opened a paste in two windows and did project/subscriber edits in each, saved in arbitrary order, had edits respected.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4768, T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14390
