Summary:
Ref T9519. When acquiring leases on resources:
- Only consider resources created by authorized blueprints.
- Only consider authorized blueprints when creating new resources.
- Fail with a tailored error if no blueprints are allowed.
- Fail with a tailored error if missing authorizations are causing acquisition failure.
One somewhat-substantial issue with this is that it's pretty hard to figure out from the Harbormaster side. Specifically, the Build step UI does not show field value anywhere, so the presence of unapproved blueprints is not communicated. This is much more clear in Drydock. I'll plan to address this in future changes to Harbormaster, since there are other related/similar issues anyway.
Test Plan: {F872527}
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9519
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14254
Summary:
Ref T9519. This is like 80% of the way there and doesn't fully work yet, but roughly shows the shape of things to come. Here's how it works:
First, there's a new custom field type for blueprints which works like a normal typeahead but has some extra logic. It's implemented this way to make it easy to add to Blueprints in Drydock and Build Plans in Harbormaster. Here, I've added a "Use Blueprints" field to the "WorkingCopy" blueprint, so you can control which hosts the working copies are permitted to allocate on:
{F869865}
This control has a bit of custom rendering logic. Instead of rendering a normal list of PHIDs, it renders an annotated list with icons:
{F869866}
These icons show whether the blueprint on the other size of the authorization has approved this object. Once you have a green checkmark, you're good to go.
On the blueprint side, things look like this:
{F869867}
This table shows all the objects which have asked for access to this blueprint. In this case it's showing that one object is approved to use the blueprint since I already approved it, but by default new requests come in here as "Authorization Requested" and someone has to go approve them.
You approve them from within the authorization detail screen:
{F869868}
You can use the "Approve" or "Decline" buttons to allow or prevent use of the blueprint.
This doesn't actually do anything yet -- objects don't need to be authorized in order to use blueprints quite yet. That will come in the next diff, I just wanted to get the UI in reasonable shape first.
The authorization also has a second piece of state, which is whether the request from the object is active or inactive. We use this to keep track of the authorization if the blueprint is (maybe temporarily) deleted.
For example, you might have a Build Plan that uses Blueprints A and B. For a couple days, you only want to use A, so you remove B from the "Use Blueprints: ..." field. Later, you can add B back and it will connect to its old authorization again, so you don't need to go re-approve things (and if you're declined, you stay declined instead of being able to request authorization over and over again). This should make working with authorizations a little easier and less labor intensive.
Stuff not in this diff:
- Actually preventing any allocations (next diff).
- Probably should have transactions for approve/decline, at least, at some point, so there's a log of who did approvals and when.
- Maybe should have a more clear/loud error state when no blueprints are approved?
- Should probably restrict the typeahead to specific blueprint types.
Test Plan:
- Added the field.
- Typed some stuff into it.
- Saw the UI update properly.
- Approved an authorization.
- Declined an authorization.
- Saw active authorizations on a blueprint page.
- Didn't see any inactive authroizations there.
- Clicked "View All Authorizations", saw all authorizations.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9519
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14251
Summary:
If Mercurial 3.4+ is used to host repositories in Phabricator, any clients using 3.5+ will receive an exception after the bundle is pushed up. Clients will also fail to update phases for changesets pushed up.
Before directly responding to mercurial clients with all capabilities, this change filters out the 'bundle2' capability so the client negotiates using a legacy bundle wire format instead.
Test Plan:
Server: Mercurial 3.5
Client: Mercurial 3.4
Test with both HTTP and SSH protocols:
1. Create a local commit on client
2. Push commit to server
3. Verify the client emits something like:
```
searching for changes
remote: adding changesets
remote: adding manifests
remote: adding file changes
remote: added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
```
Closes T9450
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9450
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14241
Summary: Ref T9252. Move these into a new "Drydock" group.
Test Plan: Clicked "Add Build Step", saw Drydock steps in a Drydock group.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14237
Summary:
Fixes T9494. This:
- Removes all the random GC.x.y.z config.
- Puts it all in one place that's locked and which you use `bin/garbage set-policy ...` to adjust.
- Makes every TTL-based GC configurable.
- Simplifies the code in the actual GCs.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/garbage collect` to collect some garbage, until it stopped collecting.
- Ran `bin/garbage set-policy ...` to shorten policy. Saw change in web UI. Ran `bin/garbage collect` again and saw it collect more garbage.
- Set policy to indefinite and saw it not collect garabge.
- Set policy to default and saw it reflected in web UI / `collect`.
- Ran `bin/phd debug trigger` and saw all GCs fire with reasonable looking queries.
- Read new docs.
{F857928}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9494
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14219
Summary: Ref T9352. See D13635. Build targets can have variables already, but let builds have them too. This mostly enables future use cases (sub-builds, more sophisticated build triggers).
Test Plan: With a custom Herald rule + action like the one in T9352, updated a revision and saw it generate multiple builds with varying parameters.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9352
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14222
Summary: Ref T9252. Add a bit more logging and improve some behaviors.
Test Plan: Restarted a build, got a good result.
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14210
Summary:
Ref T9252. This is the same as D14201, but for lease stuff instead of resource stuff.
This one is a little heavier but still feels pretty reasonable to me at the end of the day (worker is <1K lines and has a ton of comment stuff).
Also fixes a few random bugs I hit in the task queue.
Test Plan:
- Restarted some Harbormaster builds, saw them go through cleanly.
- Released pre-activation resources/leases.
- Probably still kinda buggy but I'll iron the details out over time.
Logs are starting to look somewhat plausible:
{F855747}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14202
Summary:
Ref T9252. Currently, Drydock Leases and Resources have several workers:
- Resources: ResourceWorker, ResourceUpdateWorker, ResourceDestroyWorker
- Leases: AllocatorWorker, LeaseWorker, LeaseUpdateWorker, LeaseDestroyWorker
This is kind of a lot of stuff, and it creates some problems.
In particular, leases and resources in early lifecycle phases (pending/allocating/acquiring) can't process commands yet, because that code is only in the "UpdateWorker" classes. If they aren't able to move forward because of a bug, they also can't be released because they can't react to the release command until later in their lifecycle. This creates a soft hang where I have to go wipe stuff out of the database since there's no other way to get rid of it.
Instead, I want leases and resources to be releasable from any (pre-release / pre-destroy) phase of their lifecycle. To support this, all the workers before the "UpdateWorker" need to be able to process commands.
A second, similar issue is that logging and exception handling behaviors are underpowered right now. Elsewhere I began improving this, but ran into issues where all of the workers needed to share very similar exception code. Merging them will make this future change simpler.
This diff fixes this for resources: it merges the Worker, UpdateWorker and DestroyWorker logic into UpdateWorker and throws away the other two workers.
Test Plan: Nothing substantive yet, see next diff. I'll do the same thing for Leases, then test both more thoroughly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14201
Summary: Ref T9252. Make log types modular so they can be translated and have complicated rendering logic if necessary (currently, none have this).
Test Plan: {F855330}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14198
Summary:
Ref T9252. Drydock logs are almost exclusively useful as a diagnostic tool for debugging immediate problems, so GC them fairly aggressively.
(I expect 99% of the usefulness of these logs to be within the first 24 hours, basically "why isn't my thing working". I can't really think of any cases where having old logs would be useful.)
Test Plan:
- Ran GC, saw it hit the log table (with no effect).
- Changed TTL from 30 days to 30 seconds, ran GC, saw it wipe recent logs.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14197
Summary: Fixes T9312. This is a bit fluff, but does simplify the view controller slightly and seems reasonable/useful in general.
Test Plan: Clicked "View Raw File" on a paste, got redirected to the raw file via a stable URI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9312
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14167
Summary: Ref T9252. This mostly cleans up future and log handling, and edges us closer to being able to do useful work with Harbormaster / Drydock.
Test Plan:
- Added a "Run `ls -alh`" step to my trivial build plan.
- Ran it a bunch of times.
- Worked great.
- Also did an HTTP plan.
{F835227}
{F835228}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14161
Summary: Ref T9252. This is still crude in a few ways but basically works, at least for commits.
Test Plan:
- Made a build plan with just this build step.
- Ran `bin/harbormaster build --plan 10 ...` on a commit.
- It actually built a working copy, leased it, took no action, and released the lease. MAGIC~~~
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14160
Summary: Ref T9252. If you have a blueprint and you do not like that blueprint very much, you can disable it.
Test Plan: Disabled / enabled some blueprints.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14156
Summary:
Ref T9252. This simplifies some Drydock code.
Most of this code relates to the old notion of Drydock being able to enumerate all the tasks it needs to complete in order to acquire a lease. The code has stepped back from this, since it's unnecessary, the queue is more powerful than it used to be, and it would be a lot of work to keep track of.
The ~only thing that should ever wait for leases in modern code is `bin/drydock lease`, and it's fine for it to just sit there sleeping, so this just does that.
This reduces the granularity of logging, but I'll address that separately in future logging-focused changes.
Test Plan: Used `bin/drydock lease` to acquire a lease, saw it acquire cleanly.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14147
Summary: Ref T9252. Some leases or resources may need to remove data, tear down VMs, etc., during cleanup. After they are released, queue a "destroy" phase for performing teardown.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/drydock lease ...` to create a working copy lease.
- Used `bin/drydock release-lease` and `bin/drydock release-resource` to release the lease and then the working copy and host.
- Saw working copy and host get destroyed and cleaned up properly.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6569, T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14144
Summary:
Ref T9252. Broadly, Drydock currently races on releasing objects from the "active" state. To reproduce this:
- Scatter some sleep()s pretty much anywhere in the release code.
- Release several times from web UI or CLI in quick succession.
Resources or leases will execute some release code twice or otherwise do inconsistent things.
(I didn't chase down a detailed reproduction scenario for this since inspection of the code makes it clear that there are no meaningful locks or mechanisms preventing this.)
Instead, add a Harbormaster-style command queue to resources and leases. When something wants to do a release, it adds a command to the queue and schedules a worker. The workers acquire a lock, then try to consume commands from the queue.
This guarantees that only one process is responsible for writes to active resource/leases.
This is the last major step to giving resources and leases a single writer during all states:
- Resource, Unsaved: AllocatorWorker
- Resource, Pending: ResourceWorker (Possible rename to "Allocated?")
- Resource, Open: This diff, ResourceUpdateWorker. (Likely rename to "Active").
- Resource, Closed/Broken: Future destruction worker. (Likely rename to "Released" / "Broken"; maybe remove "Broken").
- Resource, Destroyed: No writes.
- Lease, Unsaved: Whatever wants the lease.
- Lease, Pending: AllocatorWorker
- Lease, Acquired: LeaseWorker
- Lease, Active: This diff, LeaseUpdateWorker.
- Lease, Released/Broken: Future destruction worker (Maybe remove "Broken"?)
- Lease, Expired: No writes. (Likely rename to "Destroyed").
In most phases, we can already guarantee that there is a single writer without doing any extra work. This is more complicated in the "Active" case because the release buttons on the web UI, the release tools on the CLI, the lease requestor itself, the garbage collector, and any other release process cleaning up related objects may try to effect a release. All of these could race one another (and, in many cases, race other processes from other phases because all of these get to act immediately) as this code is currently written. Using a queue here lets us make sure there's only a single writer in this phase.
One thing which is notable is that whatever acquires a lease **can not write to it**! It is never the writer once it queues the lease for activation. It can not write to any resources, either. And, likewise, Blueprints can not write to resources while acquiring or releasing leases.
We may need to provide a mechinism so that blueprints and/or resource/lease holders get to attach some storage to resources/leases for bookkeeping. For example, a blueprint might need to keep some kind of cache on a resource to help it manage state. But I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, and nothing else would need to write to this storage so it's technically straightforward to introduce such a mechanism if we need one.
Test Plan:
- Viewed buttons in web UI, checked enabled/disabled states.
- Clicked the buttons.
- Saw commands show up in the command queue.
- Saw some daemon stuff get scheduled.
- Ran CLI tools, saw commands get consumed and resources/leases release.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14143
Summary:
Ref T9253. For resources and leases that need to do something which takes a lot of time or requires waiting, allow them to allocate/acquire first and then activate later.
When we allocate a resource or acquire a lease, the blueprint can either activate it immediately (if all the work can happen quickly/inline) or activate it later. If the blueprint activates it later, we queue a worker to handle activating it.
Rebuild the "working copy" blueprint to work with this model: it allocates/acquires and activates in a separate step, once it is able to acquire a host.
Test Plan: With some power of imagination, brought up a bunch of working copies with `bin/drydock lease --type working-copy ...`
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14127
Summary: Ref T9253. Provide a meaningful command interface for Almanac hosts.
Test Plan:
Configued and leased a real host (`sbuild001.phacility.net`) and ran a command on it.
```
$ ./bin/drydock command --lease 90 -- ls /
bin
boot
core
dev
etc
home
initrd.img
lib
lib64
lost+found
media
mnt
opt
proc
root
run
sbin
srv
sys
tmp
usr
var
vmlinuz
```
Reviewers: chad, hach-que
Reviewed By: chad, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14126
Summary:
See discussion in D10304. There's a lot of context there, but the general idea is:
- Blueprints should manage locks in a granular way during the actual allocation/acquisition phase.
- Optimistic "slot locks" might a pretty good primitive to make that easy to implement and reason about in most cases.
The way these locks work is that you just pick some name for the lock (like the PHID of a resource) and say that it needs to be acquired for the allocation/acquisition to work:
```
...
->needSlotLock("mylock(PHID-XYZQ-...)")
...
```
When you fire off the acquisition or allocation, it fails unless it could acquire the slot with that name. This is really simple (no explicit lock management) and a pretty good fit for most of the locking that blueprints and leases need to do.
If you need to do limit-based locks (e.g., maximum of 3 locks) you could acquire a lock like this:
```
mylock(whatever).slot(2)
```
Blueprints generally only contend with themselves, so it's normally OK for them to pick whatever strategy works best for them in naming locks.
This may not work as well if you have a huge number of slots (e.g., 100TB you want to give out in 1MB chunks), or other complex needs for locks (like you have to synchronize access to some external resource), but slot locks don't need to be the only mechanism that blueprints use. If they run into a problem that slot locks aren't a good fit for, they can use something else instead. For now, slot locks seem like a good fit for the problems we currently face and most of the problems I anticipate facing.
(The release workflows have other race issues which I'm not addressing here. They work fine if nothing races, but aren't race-safe.)
Test Plan:
To create a race where the same binding is allocated as a resource twice:
- Add `sleep(10)` near the beginning of `allocateResource()`, after the free bindings are loaded but before resources are allocated.
- (Comment out slot lock acquisition if you have this patch.)
- Run `bin/drydock lease ...` in two windows, within 10 seconds of one another.
This will reliably double-allocate the binding because both blueprints see a view of the world where the binding is free.
To verify the lock works, un-comment it (or apply this patch) and run the same test again. Now, the lock fails in one process and only one resource is allocated.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14118
Summary:
Ref T9253. Broadly, this realigns Allocator behavior to be more consistent and straightforward and amenable to intended future changes.
This attempts to make language more consistent: resources are "allocated" and leases are "acquired".
This prepares for (but does not implement) optimistic "slot locking", as discussed in D10304. Although I suspect some blueprints will need to perform other locking eventually, this does feel like a good fit for most of the locking blueprints need to do.
In particular, I've made the blueprint operations on `$resource` and `$lease` objects more purposeful: they need to invoke an activator on the appropriate object to be implemented correctly. Before they invoke this activator method, they configure the object. In a future diff, this configuration will include specifying slot locks that the lease or resource must acquire. So the API will be something like:
$lease
->setActivateWhenAcquired(true)
->needSlotLock('x')
->needSlotLock('y')
->acquireOnResource($resource);
In the common case where slot locks are a good fit, I think this should make correct blueprint implementation very straightforward.
This prepares for (but does not implement) resources and leases which need significant setup steps. I've basically carved out two modes:
- The "activate immediately" mode, as here, immediately opens the resource or activates the lease. This is appropriate if little or no setup is required. I expect many leases to operate in this mode, although I expect many resources will operate in the other mode.
- The "allocate now, activate later" mode, which is not fully implemented yet. This will queue setup workers when the allocator exits. Overall, this will work very similarly to Harbormaster.
- This new structure makes it acceptable for blueprints to sleep as long as they want during resource allocation and lease acquisition, so long as they are not waiting on anything which needs to be completed by the queue. Putting a `sleep(15 * 60)` in your EC2Blueprint to wait for EC2 to bring a machine up will perform worse than using delayed activation, but won't deadlock the queue or block any locks.
Overall, this flow is more similar to Harbormaster's flow. Having consistency between Harbormaster's model and Drydock's model is good, and I think Harbormaster's model is also simply much better than Drydock's (what exists today in Drydock was implemented a long time ago, and we had more support and infrastructure by the time Harbormaster was implemented, as well as a more clearly defined problem).
The particular strength of Harbormaster is that objects always (or almost always, at least) have a single, clearly defined writer. Ensuring objects have only one writer prevents races and makes reasoning about everything easier.
Drydock does not currently have a clearly defined single writer, but this moves us in that direction. We'll probably need more primitives eventually to flesh this out, like Harbormaster's command queue for messaging objects which you can't write to.
This blueprint was originally implemented in D13843. This makes a few changes to the blueprint itself:
- A bunch of code from that (e.g., interfaces) doesn't exist yet.
- I let the blueprint have multiple services. This simplifies the code a little and seems like it costs us nothing.
This also removes `bin/drydock create-resource`, which no longer makes sense to expose. It won't get locking, leasing, etc., correct, and can not be made correct.
NOTE: This technically works but doesn't do anything useful yet.
Test Plan: Used `bin/drydock lease --type host` to acquire leases against these blueprints.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Subscribers: Mnkras
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14117
Summary:
Ref T9253. See discussion in D13843.
I want to let Drydock blueprints for Almanac services choose those services from a typeahead, but only list appropriate services in the typeahead. To do this:
- Provide a StandardCustomField for an arbitrary datasource.
- Adjust the AlmanacServiceDatasource to allow filtering by service class.
This implementation is substantially the same as the one in D13843, with some adjustments:
- I lifted most of the code in the `Users` standard custom field into a new `Tokenizer` standard custom field.
- The `Users` and `Datasource` custom fields now extend the `Tokenizer` custom field and can share most of the code it uses.
- I exposed this field fully as a configurable field. I don't think anyone will ever use it, but this generality costs us nearly nothing and improves consistency.
- The code in D13843 didn't actually pass the parameters over the wire, since the object that responds to the request is not the same object that renders the field. Use the "parameters" mechanism in datasources to get things passed over the wire.
Test Plan:
- Created a custom "users" field in Maniphest and made sure it still wokred.
- Created a custom "almanc services" field in Maniphest and selected some services for a task.
- With additional changes from D13843, selected an appropriate Almanac service in a new Drydock blueprint.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14111
Summary:
Ref T9253. This comes from a time before Almanac. Now that we have Almanac, it makes much more sense to put this logic there than to try to put it in Drydock itself.
Remove the preallocated host blueprint, a relic of a bygone time.
Test Plan: Grepped for callsites.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14110
Summary: Ref T9253. See D13843 for some discussion. This is very bare-bones for now since I believe that almost all interesting configuration (e.g., credentials) should live in Drydock, although I imagine it getting some configuration eventually.
Test Plan: Used {nav Almanac > Services > Create Service} to create a new service of this type.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14109
Summary:
I stumbled across this TODO and was worried that there was a glaring hole in MFA that I'd somehow forgotten about, but the TODO is just out of date.
These actions are rate limited properly by `PhabricatorAuthTryFactorAction`, which permits a maximum of 10 actions per hour.
- Remove the TODO.
- Add `bin/auth unlimit` to make it easier to reset rate limits if someone needs to do that for whatever reason.
Test Plan:
- Tried to brute force through MFA.
- Got rate limited properly after 10 failures.
- Reset rate limit with `bin/auth unlimit`.
- Saw the expected number of actions clear.
{F805288}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: joshuaspence
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14105
Summary: Ref T9408. This rule is unsafe in principle, and a practical vulnerability has been found by a security researcher.
Test Plan: `grep`
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9408
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14103
Summary:
This reverts commit 1583738842.
See T8646 for discussion. This version of the feature feels terrible on real data.
Test Plan: Strict revert.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14097
Summary:
Ref T8646. This is fairly rough:
This interface is very niche, and not really flexible enough to accommodate other result customization (but I don't think we have any plans here)?
I'm just //summarizing// the content of documents, basically showing the first paragraph of their content, summary, etc. This isn't what Google does: it shows snippets surrounding the actual search terms. However, this is more involved and might be less useful in structured data: for example, I'd imagine that the first line of most phriciton documents, maniphest tasks and Differential revisions really might be the best machine-generatable summary of them. The actual contextual snippeting in Google doesn't often seem hugely useful to me. But this might also not be very useful.
There's not much design, not sure if you had any ideas.
I only implemented this for tasks, revisions and the wiki since those seem most useful.
I'm generally on the fence about this, but it's not a ton of work to swap out for something else later. Maybe we can see how it feels? But happy to toss it or rethink the approach.
Test Plan: {F788026}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8646
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14095
Summary: Reachable via the cache config page, restricted to admins only. This makes it convenient to hotfix phabricator without requiring a restart.
Test Plan:
- Local dev machine doesn't have apc, so I get the not installed message.
- Faked the name and isEnabled parameters, verified dialog shows up as expected.
- Didn't test clear code
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: tycho.tatitscheff, joshuaspence, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14064
Summary: Fixes T9351. This is straightforward since this application is now relatively modern and doesn't have any bizarre craziness.
Test Plan:
{F787981}
{F787982}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14093
Summary:
Ref T9346. This mostly allows us to give users additional advice based on which instance they are trying to log in to in the Phacility cluster.
It's also slightly more flexible than `auth.login-message` was, and maybe we'll add some more hooks here eventually.
This feels like it's a sidegrade in complexity rather than really an improvement, but not too terrible.
Test Plan:
- Wrote the custom handler in T9346 to replicate old config functionality.
- Wrote a smart handler for Phacility that can provide context-sensitive messages based on which OAuth client you're trying to use.
See new message box at top (implementation in next diff):
{F780375}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9346
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14057
Summary:
Ref T7173. Depends on D14049. Now that Phacility can install custom exception handlers, this puts enough information on the exception so that we can figure out what to do with it.
- Generally modernize some of this code.
- Add some more information to PolicyExceptions so the new RequestExceptionHandler can handle them properly.
Test Plan: Failed authorizations, then succeeded authorizations. See next diff.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7173
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14050
Summary:
Ref T1806. Ref T7173. Depends on D14047.
Currently, all exception handling is in this big messy clump in `AphrontDefaultApplicationConfiguration`.
Split it out into modular classes. This will let a future change add new classes in the Phacility cluster which intercept particular exceptions we care about and replaces the default, generic responses with more useful, tailored responses.
Test Plan:
{F777391}
- Hit a Conduit error (made a method throw).
- Hit an Ajax error (made comment preview throw).
- Hit a high security error (tried to edit TOTP).
- Hit a rate limiting error (added a bunch of email addresses).
- Hit a policy error (tried to look at something with no permission).
- Hit an arbitrary exception (made a randomc ontroller throw).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T1806, T7173
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14049
Summary:
Ref T1806. Ref T7173. Context here is that I want to fix "you can not log in to this instance" being a confusing mess with an opaque error. To do this without hacks, I want to:
- clean up some exception handling behavior (this diff);
- modularize exception handling (next diff);
- replace confusing, over-general exceptions with tailored ones in the Phacility cluster, using the new modular stuff.
This cleans up an awkward "AphrontUsageException" which does some weird stuff right now. In particular, it is extensible and extended in one place in Diffusion, but that extension is meaningless.
Realign this as "AphrontMalformedRequestException", which is a better description of what it is and does: raises errors before we can get as far as normal routing and site handling.
Test Plan: Hit some of these exceptions, saw the expected "abandon all hope" error page.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T1806, T7173
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14047
Summary:
Ref T1806. Ref T5752. Currently, `handleRequest()` needs to return an `AphrontResponse`, but sometimes it's really convenient to return some other object, like a Dialog, and let that convert into a response elsewhere.
Formalize this and clean up some of the existing hacks for it so there's less custom/magical code in Phabricator-specific classes and more general code in Aphront classes.
More broadly, I want to clean up T5752 before pursuing T9132, since I'm generally happy with how `SearchEngine` works except for how it interacts with side navs / application menus. I want to fix that first so a new Editor (which will have a lot in common with SearchEngine in terms of how controllers interact with it) doesn't make the problem twice as bad.
Test Plan:
- Loaded a bunch of normal pages.
- Loaded dialogs.
- Loaded proxy responses (submitted empty comments in Maniphest).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: joshuaspence
Maniphest Tasks: T1806, T5752
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14032
Summary:
Fixes T9279. Modernizes the SearchEngine and Query classes. User-facing changes:
- Added order by commit date, default to order by commit date with newest commits first.
- Added explicit "Needs Audit by".
- Added new `packages(...)` typeahead function.
- Picked up automatic subscribers, projects, and order fields.
This changes behavior a little bit: we previously attempted to exclude, e.g., commits which a package you own needs to audit, but which you have resigned from. This is difficult in general and I think it needs a more comprehensive solution. This shouldn't impact users much, anyway.
Test Plan: {F767628}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14013
Summary:
This enables CORGI.
Currently, `AphrontSite` subclasses can't really have their own routes. They can do this sort of hacky rewriting of paths, but that's a mess and not desirable in the long run.
Instead, let subclasses build their own routing maps. This will let CORP and ORG have their own routing maps.
I was able to get rid of the `PhameBlogResourcesSite` since it can really just share the standard resources site.
Test Plan:
- With no base URI set, and a base URI set, loaded main page and resources (from main site).
- With file domain set, loaded resources from main site and file site.
- Loaded a skinned blog from a domain.
- Loaded a skinned blog from the main site.
- Viewed "Request" tab of DarkConsole to see site/controller info.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14008
Summary:
Ref T8783. Sort out some relationships and fields:
- Make Items 1:1 with Queues: each item is always in exactly one queue. Minor discussion on T8783. I think this is easier to understand and reason about (and implement!) and can't come up with any real cases where it isn't powerful enough.
- Remove "QueueItem", which allowed items to be in multiple queues at once.
- Remove "dateNuanced", which is equivalent to "dateCreated" in all cases.
Then add really basic routing:
- Add "Default Queue" for Sources. New items from the source route into that queue.
- (Some day there will be routing rules, but for now the rule is "always route into the default queue".)
- Show queue on items.
- Show more / more useful edit history and transactions in several UIs.
Test Plan:
{F749445}
{F749446}
{F749447}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8783
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13988
Summary: Ref T2015. This allows searching based on blueprints, resources or leases when viewing the logs, which helps when searching for events that occured to a particular blueprint / resource / lease. Unlike the logs shown on the resource / lease pages, the search engine supports paging properly, which means it can be used to find entries in the past.
Test Plan: Used the Drydock log search page.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: joshuaspence, Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10874
Summary: Ref T8783. There's nothing at `/nuance/` right now, put something basic there.
Test Plan: {F747078}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8783
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13965
Summary: Ref T8588. It looks like something slow is happening //before// we start DarkConsole. Add some crude reporting to try to narrow it down.
Test Plan: {F743050}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8588
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13956
Summary: Ref T9068, Ref T3846. Maybe fixes both, but I'm having issues testing email replies in a sandbox. Moves answer feed/mail generation to the AnswerEditor, hides it in QuestionEditor.
Test Plan: Write an answer, see feed story, check /mail/ for mail generation.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T3846, T9068
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13905
Summary:
Fixes T2183. We now use the same rendering element in both places.
Intentional changes:
- Package highlighting is out, coming back to both apps in next diff.
- removed redundant-feeling "Change" link. The information is now shown with a character ("M", "V", etc.) and the page is a click away under "History". Clicking the path also jumps you to substantially similar content. (We could restore it fairly easily, I just think it's probably the least useful thing in the table right now.)
Test Plan: Viewed a bunch of commits in Diffusion.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2183
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13910
Summary:
Ref T2183. Introduces a new View which can (in theory) unify the Revision, Diff and Commit table of contents views.
This has the same behavior as before, but accepts slightly more general primitives and parameters and has somewhat cleaner code.
I've made one intentinoal behavior change: removing the "Open All in Editor" button. I suspect this is essentially unused, and is a pain to keep around. We can look at restoring it if anyone notices.
Test Plan: Looked at a bunch of revisions, no changes from before.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2183
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13908
Summary: Ref T5791. This is still very basic (no global actions, no support for matching headers/bodies/recipients/etc) but gets the core in.
Test Plan:
{F715209}
{F715211}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5791
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13897
Summary:
Ref T8659. In the general case, this eventually allows build processes to do things like:
- Upload build results (like a ".app" or ".exe" or other binary).
- Pass complex results between build steps (e.g., build step A does something hard and build step B uses it to do something else).
Today, we're a long way away from having the infrastructure for that. However, it is useful to let third party build processes (like Jenkins) upload URIs that link back to the external build results.
This adds `harbormaster.createartifact` so they can do that. The only useful thing to do with this method today is have your Jenkins build do this:
params = array(
"uri": "https://jenkins.mycompany.com/build/23923/details/",
"name": "View Build Results in Jenkins",
"ui.external": true,
);
harbormaster.createartifact(target, 'uri', params);
Then (after the next diff) we'll show a link in Differential and a prominent link in Harbormaster. I didn't actually do the UI stuff in this diff since it's already pretty big.
This change moves a lot of code around, too:
- Adds PHIDs to artifacts.
- It modularizes build artifact types (currently "file", "host" and "URI").
- It formalizes build artifact parameters and construction:
- This lets me generate usable documentation about how to create artifacts.
- This prevents users from doing dangerous or policy-violating things.
- It does some other general modernization.
Test Plan:
{F715633}
{F715634}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8659
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13900
Summary: Ref T9173, adds basic hide support for answers. Answer authors and Moderators can hide answers, unhide them.
Test Plan: Hide answer, log into other account, see hidden message. Mark as visible, see answer again.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9173
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13894
