Summary:
Ref T2222. This isn't complete and doesn't change runtime behavior yet (the new fields are not glued to the interface), but implements many fields.
(The remaining fields have something weird going on with them, for the most part.)
Test Plan:
With additional changes, rendered most fields sensibly:
{F118834}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8354
Summary:
Ref T2222. Ref T3886. Ref T418. A few changes:
- CustomField can now index into global search.
- Use CustomField fields instead of older custom fields for Differential global search. (This slightly breaks any custom fields which exist, but they are presumably very rare, and probably do not exist; this break is also very mild.)
- Automatically perform CustomField and Subscribable indexing on applicable object types.
Test Plan: Used `bin/search index` to reindex a bunch of stuff, then searched for it. Debug-dumped abstract documents to inspect them.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T418, T3886, T2222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8346
Summary:
Ref T3886. Broadly, fields break down into two types right now: fields which store data on the object (like `DifferentialTitleField`) and fields which store data in custom field storage.
The former type generally reads data from the object into local storage prior to editing, then writes it back afterward. Currently, this happens in `didSetObject()`.
However, now that we load and set objects from ApplicationTransactionQuery, we'll do this extra read-field-values on view interfaces too. There, it's unnecessary and sometimes throws data-attached exceptions.
Instead, separate these concepts, and do all the read-from-object / read-from-storage in one logical chunk, separate from `didSetObject()`.
Test Plan:
- Edited Differential revision.
- Edited Maniphest task.
- Edited Project.
- Edited user profile.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8299
Summary:
Ref T3886. Ref T418.
- Adds "View Policy" and "Edit Policy" fields.
- Allows CustomFields to produce arbitrary types of transactions, so these fields can produce standard view/edit policy transactions and get all the strings and validation associated with them.
Test Plan: {F116001}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T418, T3886
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8287
Summary:
Ref T3886. Ref T418. For fields like "Summary" and "Test Plan" where changes can't be summarized in one line, allow CustomField to provide a "(Show Details)" link and render a diff.
Also consolidate some of the existing copy/paste, and simplify this featuer slightly now that we've move to dialogs.
Test Plan:
{F115918}
- Viewed "description"-style field changes in phlux, pholio, legalpad, maniphest, differential, ponder (questions), ponder (answers), and repositories.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3886, T418
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8284
Summary: Ref T2217. Render feed stories like "alincoln updated T123" instead of "alincoln updated this task.". Fix up some more translations.
Test Plan: Looked at feed, saw something a bit more reasonable.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7108
Summary: Improves transaction rendering for custom fields and standard custom fields.
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7054
Summary:
Ref T418. This is fairly messy, but basically:
- Add a validation phase to TransactionEditor.
- Add a validation phase to CustomField.
- Bring it to StandardField.
- Add validation logic for the int field.
- Provide support in related classes.
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T418
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7028
Summary:
Ref T2625. Ref T3794. Ref T418. Ref T1703.
This is a more general version of D5278. It expands CustomField support to include real integration with ApplicationSearch.
Broadly, custom fields may elect to:
- build indicies when objects are updated;
- populate ApplicationSearch forms with new controls;
- read inputs entered into those controls out of the request; and
- apply constraints to search queries.
Some utility/helper stuff is provided to make this easier. This part could be cleaner, but seems reasonable for a first cut. In particular, the Query and SearchEngine must manually call all the hooks right now instead of everything happening magically. I think that's fine for the moment; they're pretty easy to get right.
Test Plan:
I added a new searchable "Company" field to People:
{F58229}
This also cleaned up the disable/reorder view a little bit:
{F58230}
As it did before, this field appears on the edit screen:
{F58231}
However, because it has `search`, it also appears on the search screen:
{F58232}
When queried, it returns the expected results:
{F58233}
And the actually good bit of all this is that the query can take advantage of indexes:
mysql> explain SELECT * FROM `user` user JOIN `user_customfieldstringindex` `appsearch_0` ON `appsearch_0`.objectPHID = user.phid AND `appsearch_0`.indexKey = 'mk3Ndy476ge6' AND `appsearch_0`.indexValue IN ('phacility') ORDER BY user.id DESC LIMIT 101;
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+-------------------+----------+---------+------------------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra |
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+-------------------+----------+---------+------------------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | SIMPLE | appsearch_0 | ref | key_join,key_find | key_find | 232 | const,const | 1 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
| 1 | SIMPLE | user | eq_ref | phid | phid | 194 | phabricator2_user.appsearch_0.objectPHID | 1 | |
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+-------------------+----------+---------+------------------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T418, T1703, T2625, T3794
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6992
Summary: Adds plain support for object lists that just look like lists
Test Plan: review UIexamples and a number of other applications
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6922
Summary:
Ref T1703. Ref T3718. This introduces `PhabricatorCustomFieldAttachment`, which is just a fancy `array()`. The goal here is to simplify `PhabricatorCustomFieldInterface` as much as possible.
In particular, it can now use common infrastructure (`assertAttached()`) and is more difficult to get wrong.
Test Plan: Edited custom fields on profile.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703, T3718
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6752
Summary:
Ref T1703. Ref T3718. The `PhabricatorCustomFieldList` seems like a pretty good idea. Move more code into it to make it harder to get wrong.
Also the sequencing on old/new values for these transactions was a bit off; fix that up.
Test Plan: Edited standard and custom profile fields.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703, T3718
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6751
Summary:
Fixes T3661. Ref T3718. This makes Releeph custom fields extend PhabricatorCustomField so we can start moving over other pieces of infrastructure (rendering, storage, etc) to run through the same pathways. It's roughly the minimum amount of work required to be able to move forward.
NOTE: This removes per-project custom field selectors. Fields are now configured for an entire install. My understanding is that Facebook does not use this feature, and modern field infrastructure has moved away from selectors.
Test Plan: Viewed and edited projects, branches, and requests in Releeph. Grepped for removed config. Grepped for `field_selector`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: LegNeato, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3661, T3718
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6750
Summary:
Ref T1702. Ref T3718. There are a couple of things going on here:
**PhabricatorCustomFieldList**: I added `PhabricatorCustomFieldList`, which is just a convenience class for dealing with lists of fields. Often, current field code does something like this inline in a Controller:
foreach ($fields as $field) {
// do some junk
}
Often, that junk has some slightly subtle implications. Move all of it to `$list->doSomeJunk()` methods (like `appendFieldsToForm()`, `loadFieldsFromStorage()`) to reduce code duplication and prevent errors. This additionally moves an existing list-convenience method there, out of `PhabricatorPropertyListView`.
**PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage**: Adds `PhabricatorUserConfiguredCustomFieldStorage` for storing custom field data (like "ICQ Handle", "Phone Number", "Desk", "Favorite Flower", etc).
**Configuration-Driven Custom Fields**: Previously, I was thinking about doing these with interfaces, but as I thought about it more I started to dislike that approach. Instead, I built proxies into `PhabricatorCustomField`. Basically, this means that fields (like a custom, configuration-driven "Favorite Flower" field) can just use some other Field to actually provide their implementation (like a "standard" field which knows how to render text areas). The previous approach would have involed subclasssing the "standard" field and implementing an interface, but that would mean that every application would have at least two "base" fields and generally just seemed bleh as I worked through it.
The cost of this approach is that we need a bunch of `proxy` junk in the base class, but that's a one-time cost and I think it simplifies all the implementations and makes them a lot less magical (e.g., all of the custom fields now extend the right base field classes).
**Fixed Some Bugs**: Some of this code hadn't really been run yet and had minor bugs.
Test Plan:
{F54240}
{F54241}
{F54242}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1702, T1703, T3718
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6749
Summary:
Ref T1703. Drive "user since" with a custom field and make the other fields render into a property list.
Users can make their profiles a little more personal/obnoxious now.
Also delete a bunch of code.
Test Plan: {F49415}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6401
Summary:
Adds a profile edit controller (with just one field and on links to it) that uses ApplicationTransactions and CustomField.
{F45617}
My plan is to move the other profile fields to this interface and get rid of Settings -> Profile. Basically, these will be "settings":
- Sex
- Language
- Timezone
These will be "profile":
- Real Name
- Title
- Blurb
- Profile Image (but I'm going to put this on a separate UI)
- Other custom fields
Test Plan: Edited my realname using the new interface.
Reviewers: chad, seporaitis
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6152
Summary:
None of this code is reachable yet. See discussion in D6147. Ref T1703.
Provide tighter integration between ApplicationTransactions and CustomField. Basically, I'm just trying to get all the shared stuff into the base implementation.
Test Plan: Code not reachable.
Reviewers: chad, seporaitis
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6149
Summary:
Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit.
For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though:
- Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch.
- Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed.
- Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field.
For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278.
For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet.
For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this:
- We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled.
- We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom.
- There are two downsides to this approach:
- If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream.
- If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability.
- I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to.
- We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother.
- There are numerous upsides to this approach:
- We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration.
- In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore.
- Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click.
- Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff.
- Generally, it's super easy for users to understand.
This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it.
Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet.
Reviewers: chad, seporaitis
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
