Summary: Try to dis-ambiguate various button types and colors. Moves `simple` to `phui-button-simple` and moves colors to `button-color`.
Test Plan: Grep for buttons still inline, UIExamples, PHUIX, Herald, and Email Preferences.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18077
Summary: Ref T12733. Completely removes the objectives UI.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `objective`, etc.
- Browsed revisions, no JS errors / broken stuff.
- (If I missed anything, it's likely to turn up in followup changes.)
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12733
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18043
Summary:
Fixes T12757. Here's a simple repro for this:
- Add a package you own as a reviewer to a revision you're reviewing.
- Open two windows, select "Accept", don't submit the form.
- Submit the form in window A.
- Submit the fomr in window B.
Previously, window B would show an error, because we considered accepting on behalf of the package invalid, as the package had already accepted.
Instead, let repeat-accepts through without complaint.
Some product stuff:
- We could roadblock users with a more narrow validation error message here instead, like "Package X has already been accepted.", but I think this would be more annoying than helpful.
- If your accept has no effect (i.e., everything you're accepting for has already accepted) we currently just let it through. I think this is fine -- and a bit tricky to tailor -- but the ideal/consistent beavior is to do a "no effect" warning like "All the reviewers you're accepting for have already accepted.". This is sufficiently finnicky/rare (and probably not terribly useful/desiable in this specific case)that I'm just punting.
Test Plan: Did the flow above, got an "Accept" instead of a validation error.
Reviewers: chad, lvital
Reviewed By: chad, lvital
Subscribers: lvital
Maniphest Tasks: T12757
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18019
Summary:
Ref T12733.
- While editing a comment, show a pink star ({icon star, color=pink}) with a tooltip.
- Slight UI tweaks, including draft comments getting an indigo pencil ({icon pencil, color=indigo}).
Test Plan: {F4968470}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12733
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17977
Summary: See D17955.
Test Plan: Loaded a revision, no longer saw annotations with prototypes off. Still saw annotations with prototypes on.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17983
Summary:
Minor UI tweaks:
- Use the dynamic icon for each file (e.g., image, text), not a hard-coded icon.
- Render the path (less important) in grey and the filename (more important) in black.
Test Plan: {F4966176}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17957
Summary:
Add important objectives (like waygates and quest markers) to the minimap.
This also probably fixes @cspeckmim's bug with the {key @} keyboard shortcut.
Test Plan:
(This is probably easier to undestand if you `arc patch` + click around.)
{F4966037}
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: cspeckmim
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17955
Summary:
Fixes T1591. This was removed long ago because it was a mess to implement and caused a bunch of weird issues, and also my tolerance for dealing with weird JS issues was much, much lower.
I have now survived the fires of JX.Scrollbar and would love to address 200 small nitpicks about obscure browser behaviors on Linux, so open the floodgates again.
A secondary goal here is to create room to add a global view state menu on the right, with 300 options like "hide all inlines", "hide done inlines", "hide collapsed inlines", "hide ghosts", "show ghosts", "enable filetree", "disable filetree", etc, etc. Not sure how much of this I'll actually do. I have one more experiment I want to try first.
Test Plan: {F4963294}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T1591
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17945
Summary:
Ref T12616. This puts "h" back to collapse or expand the current file.
This removes some very complicated/messy code around following links in the table of contents and getting files auto-expanded. I suspect no one will miss this, but we can restore it if ayone notices.
Test Plan: Pressed "h" to collapse/expand a file. Also used the menu items.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17940
Summary:
Fixes T8323. See that task for a description.
We were using `nonempty()`, but that rule doesn't cover synthetic deletions (file present in an earlier diff, but no longer present in the later diff).
Test Plan: Followed the steps in T8323, got a clean comment.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8323
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17929
Summary: Ref T12616. This makes line range selection use the new code, and removes the remainder of the old "hover a line number" / "select a line range" code.
Test Plan: Hovered line numbers; selected line ranges.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17927
Summary:
Fixes T7682. The left-hand-side "<th />" row did not generate with the correct ID.
(I couldn't reproduce the exact issue described in T7682, but hovering comments on either side now works properly for me.)
Test Plan: {F4962479}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7682
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17926
Summary:
Ref T11401. Fixes T5232. Ref T12616.
Partly, this moves more code over to the new stuff.
This also allows "r" to work if you have code selected (not just comments). If you "reply" to code, you start a new comment.
You can "R" a comment to quote it. This just starts a new comment normally if you "R" a block of code. This is sort of a power-user version of "quote" since it seems like it probably doesn't really make sense to put it in the UI ever (maybe).
With the new click-to-select, you can click + "R" to reply-with-quote.
Test Plan: Used "r" and "R" to reply to comments and code.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616, T11401, T5232
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17920
Summary:
Ref T12616. Fixes T12715. I suspect these are very rarely used. (I think you tried to get rid of them before but I pushed back since we couldn't really offer great alternatives at the time?)
Now that the code is in a better place:
- Click an inline's header (just the colored part) to select it with the keyboard selection cursor.
- Click again to deselect it.
- You can use "n" and "p" to jump to comments, so "click + n" is the same as the old "V" action.
- This also makes it easier to swap between keyboard and mouse workflows, since you can jump into things with the keyboard at any inline.
Also, make "Reply" render more consistently.
Test Plan:
- Did all that stuff, things seemed to work OK.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12715, T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17908
Summary:
Fixes T8130. Allows selected comments to be shown/hidden (with "q") or marked done/not-done (with "w").
(These key selections are because "qwer" are right next to each other on QWERTY keyboards, and now mean "hide, done, edit, reply".)
Also, allow "N" and "P" to do next/previous inline, including hidden inlines. This makes "q" to hide/show a little more powerful and a little easier to undo.
Test Plan: Used "q", "w", "N" and "P" to navigate and interact with comments.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8130
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17906
Summary: Ref T12616. This makes "edit" and "reply" work again.
Test Plan:
Used "e" and "r" to edit and reply.
Also used them in bogus ways and got useful UI feedback.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17895
Summary: Ref T12616. This moves most keyboard shortcuts into DiffChangesetList. It breaks some shortcuts that I plan to restore later, noted in T12616 (toggle file, edit inline, reply to inline), since I think ripping them out now and rebuilding them in a little bit will make things much simpler.
Test Plan:
- Used j, k, n, p, J, K shortcuts to navigate a revision.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17859
Summary:
Ref T12616. Fixes T12153. Currently, when you hide inlines, they hide completely and turn into a little bubble on the previous line.
Instead, collapse them to a single line one-by-one. Narrowly, this fixes T12153.
In the future, I plan to make these changes so this feature makes more sense:
- Introduce global "hide everything" states (T8909) so you can completely hide stuff if you want, and this represents more of a halfway state between "nuke it" and "view it".
- Make the actual rendering better, so it says "epriestley: blah blah..." instead of just "..." -- and looks less dumb.
The real goal here is to introduce `DiffInline` and continue moving stuff from the tangled jungle of a million top-level behaviors to sensible smooth statefulness.
Test Plan:
- Hid and revealed inlines in unified and two-up modes.
- These look pretty junk for now:
{F4948659}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616, T12153
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17861
Summary: Ref T12616. This cements the relationship between ChangesetList (parent container) and Changeset (child) and passes translations down so Changeset can use them to translate the text "Loading..."
Test Plan: Viewed loading changes.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17846
Summary: Ref T12616. This ends up being a little messy ("one giant function") and maybe I'll clean it up a bit later, but continue consolidating the wild jungle of behaviors into a smaller set of responsible objects.
Test Plan: Clicked all the menu options, saw them work properly. Grepped for removed methods.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12616
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17845
Summary:
Fixes T12679. Reproduction steps appear to be:
- As a logged-out user, view revision list or commit list.
- Enable bucketing by action required.
- Before patch: `foreach (null as ...)` causes error spew.
- After patch: `foreach (array() as ...)` works great.
Test Plan:
- Reproduced issue by following steps above in Differential (revisions) and Diffusion (audits/commits).
- After patches, no more errors in the log.
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12679
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17872
Summary:
Fixes T12642. Currently, writing "Fixes T..." in a comment gets picked up as a formal "fixes".
This is a bit confusing, and can also give you a "no effect" error if you "fixes ..." a task which is already "fixes"'d.
We could make the duplicate action a non-error, but just prevent the text from having an effect instead, which seems cleaner.
Test Plan:
- Wrote "Fixes ..." in a summary, saw a "fixes" relationship established.
- Wrote "Fixes ..." in a comment, got a "mention" instead.
- `var_dump()`'d some stuff as a sanity check, looked reasonable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12642
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17805
Summary: Makes it more clear whose authority actions have been taken under.
Test Plan: {F4916376}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17741
Summary:
Previously, "reject" and "reject older" were separate statuses. Now, they're both shades of "reject".
Set the "older reject" flag properly when we find a non-current reject.
Test Plan:
- User A accepts a revision.
- User B rejects it.
- Author updates it.
- Before patch: incorrectly transitions to "accepted" ("older" reject is ignored).
- After patch: correctly transitions to "needs review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17653
Summary:
Ref T12509. Many of the calls to HMAC+SHA1 are just to compute cachekeys for remarkup objects.
Make these use HMAC+SHA256 instead. There is no downside to swapping these since they just cause a cache miss in the worst case.
I also plan to get rid of `PhabricatorMarkupInterface` eventually, but this doesn't go that far.
Test Plan: Browsed some different types of documents (tasks, legalpad documents, phame blogs / posts, pholio mocks, etc).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17631
Summary:
Ref T12272. I wrote this correctly, then broke it by adding the simplification which treats "accept the defaults" as "accept everything".
This simplification lets us render "epriestley accepted this revision." instead of "epriestley accepted this revision onbehalf of: long, list, of, every, default, reviewer, they, have, authority, over." so it's a good thing, but make it only affect the reviewers it's supposed to affect.
Test Plan:
- Did an accept with a force-accept available but unchecked.
- Before patch: incorrectly accepted all possible reviewers.
- After patch: accepted only checked reviewers.
- Also checked the force-accept box, accepted, got a proper force-accept.
Reviewers: chad, lvital
Reviewed By: lvital
Maniphest Tasks: T12272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17634
Summary: Allow API callers to retrieve reviewer information via a new "reviewers" attachment.
Test Plan: {F4675784}
Reviewers: chad, lvital
Reviewed By: lvital
Subscribers: lvital
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17633
The root issue here is actually just that I cherry-picked stable locally
but did not push it. However, this is a minor issue I also caught while
double-checking things.
Auditors: chad
Summary:
Ref T12464. This is a very old method which can return an existing file instead of creating a new one, if there's some existing file with the same content.
In the best case this is a bad idea. This being somewhat reasonable predates policies, temporary files, etc. Modern methods like `newFromFileData()` do this right: they share underlying data in storage, but not the actual `File` records.
Specifically, this is the case where we get into trouble:
- I upload a private file with content "X".
- You somehow generate a file with the same content by, say, viewing a raw diff in Differential.
- If the diff had the same content, you get my file, but you don't have permission to see it or whatever so everything breaks and is terrible.
Just get rid of this.
Test Plan:
- Generated an SSH key.
- Viewed a raw diff in Differential.
- (Did not test Phragment.)
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T12464
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17617
Summary:
Ref T11357. When creating a file, callers can currently specify a `ttl`. However, it isn't unambiguous what you're supposed to pass, and some callers get it wrong.
For example, to mean "this file expires in 60 minutes", you might pass either of these:
- `time() + phutil_units('60 minutes in seconds')`
- `phutil_units('60 minutes in seconds')`
The former means "60 minutes from now". The latter means "1 AM, January 1, 1970". In practice, because the GC normally runs only once every four hours (at least, until recently), and all the bad TTLs are cases where files are normally accessed immediately, these 1970 TTLs didn't cause any real problems.
Split `ttl` into `ttl.relative` and `ttl.absolute`, and make sure the values are sane. Then correct all callers, and simplify out the `time()` calls where possible to make switching to `PhabricatorTime` easier.
Test Plan:
- Generated an SSH keypair.
- Viewed a changeset.
- Viewed a raw diff.
- Viewed a commit's file data.
- Viewed a temporary file's details, saw expiration date and relative time.
- Ran unit tests.
- (Didn't really test Phragment.)
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T11357
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17616
Summary:
Fixes T12496. Sticky accept was accidentally impacted by the "void" changes in D17566.
Instead, don't always downgrade all accepts/rejects: on update, we only want to downgrade accepts.
Test Plan:
- With sticky accept off, updated an accepted revision: new state is "needs review".
- With sticky accept on, updated an accepted revision: new state is "accepted" (sticky accept working correctly).
- Did "reject" + "request review" to make sure that still works, worked fine.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12496
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17605
Summary:
Ref T12272. If you own a package which owns "/", this allows you to force-accept package reviews for packages which own sub-paths, like "/src/adventure/".
The default UI looks something like this:
```
[X] Accept as epriestley
[X] Accept as Root Package
[ ] Force accept as Adventure Package
```
By default, force-accepts are not selected.
(I may do some UI cleanup and/or annotate "because you own X" in the future and/or mark these accepts specially in some way, particularly if this proves confusing along whatever dimension.)
Test Plan: {F4314747}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17569
Summary: Ref T10967. This change is similar to D17566, but for rejects.
Test Plan:
- Create a revision as A, with reviewer B.
- Reject as B.
- Request review as A.
- Before patch: stuck in "rejected".
- After patch: transitions back to "needs review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17568
Summary: Ref T10967. This moves all remaining "request review" pathways (just `differential.createcomment`) to the new code, and removes the old action.
Test Plan: Requested review on a revision, `grep`'d for the action constant.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17567
Summary:
Ref T10967. This is explained in more detail in T10967#217125
When an author does "Request Review" on an accepted revision, void (in the sense of "cancel out", like a bank check) any "accepted" reviewers on the current diff.
Test Plan:
- Create a revision with author A and reviewer B.
- Accept as B.
- "Request Review" as A.
- (With sticky accepts enabled.)
- Before patch: revision swithced back to "accepted".
- After patch: the earlier review is "voided" by te "Request Review", and the revision switches to "Review Requested".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17566
Summary:
Ref T11050. The old rule was "you can only resign if you're a reviewer".
With the new behavior of "resign", the rule should be "you can resign if you're a reviewer, or you have authority over any reviewer". Make it so.
Also fixes T12446. I don't know how to reproduce that but I'm pretty sure this'll fix it?
Test Plan:
- Could not resign from a revision with no authority/reviewer.
- Resigned from a revision with myself as a reviewer.
- Resigned from a revision with a package I owned as a reviewer.
- Could not resign from a revision I had already resigned from.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12446, T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17558
Summary: Ref T9363, If we're in a dashboard panel, only show buckets with data, or a fallback if nothing exists.
Test Plan: Test 'active revisions' panel in a dashboard and in Differential.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9363
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17544
Summary:
Ref T12271. Don't do anything with this yet, but store who accepted/rejected/whatever on behalf of reviewers.
In the future, we could use this to render stuff like "Blessed Committers (accepted by epriestley)" or whatever. I don't know that this is necessarily super useful, but it's easy to track, seems likely to be useful, and would be a gigantic pain to backfill later if we decide we want it.
Test Plan: Accepted/rejected a revision, saw reviewers update appropriately.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17537
Summary:
Ref T12271. Currenty, when you "Accept" a revision, you always accept it for all reviewers you have authority over.
There are some situations where communication can be more clear if users can accept as only themselves, or for only some packages, etc. T12271 discusses some of these use cases in more depth.
Instead of making "Accept" a blanket action, default it to doing what it does now but let the user uncheck reviewers.
In cases where project/package reviewers aren't in use, this doesn't change anything.
For now, "reject" still acts the old way (reject everything). We could make that use checkboxes too, but I'm not sure there's as much of a use case for it, and I generally want users who are blocking stuff to have more direct accountability in a product sense.
Test Plan:
- Accepted normally.
- Accepted a subset.
- Tried to accept none.
- Tried to accept bogus reviewers.
- Accepted with myself not a reviewer
- Accepted with only one reviewer (just got normal "this will be accepted" text).
{F4251255}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17533
Summary: Hit this while `arc diff`'ing something which is triggering 2+ rules which add reviewers, I think.
Test Plan: Dug this out of a production stack trace; will push and `arc diff` again.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17534
Summary:
Ref T10967. I'm not 100% sure we need this, but the old edge table had it and I recall an issue long ago where not having this key left us with a bad query plan.
Our data doesn't really provide a way to test this key (we have many revisions and few reviewers, so the query planner always uses revision keys), and building a convincing test case would take a while (lipsum needs some improvements to add reviewers). But in the worst case this key is mostly useless and wastes a few MB of disk space, which isn't a big deal.
So I can't conclusively prove that this key does anything to the dashboard query, but the migration removed it and I'm more comfortable keeping it so I'm not worried about breaking stuff.
At the very least, MySQL does select this key in the query plan when I do a "Reviewers:" query explicitly so it isn't //useless//.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/storage upgrade`, ran dashboard query, the query plan didn't get any worse.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17532
Summary:
Fixes T11050. Today, when a user resigns, we just delete the record of them ever being a reviewer.
However, this means you have no way to say "I don't care about this and don't want to see it on my dashboard" if you are a member of any project or package reviewers.
Instead, store "resigned" as a distinct state from "not a reviewer", and treat it a little differently in the UI:
- On the bucketing screen, discard revisions any responsible user has resigned from.
- On the main `/Dxxx` page, show these users as resigned explicitly (we could just hide them, too, but I think this is good to start with).
- In the query, don't treat a "resigned" state as a real "reviewer" (this change happened earlier, in D17517).
- When resigning, write a "resigned" state instead of deleting the row.
- When editing a list of reviewers, I'm still treating this reviewer as a reviewer and not special casing it. I think that's sufficiently clear but we could tailor this behavior later.
Test Plan:
- Resigned from a revision.
- Saw "Resigned" in reviewers list.
- Saw revision disappear from my dashboard.
- Edited revision, saw user still appear as an editable reviewer. Saved revision, saw no weird side effects.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17531
Summary:
Ref T10967. Improves some method names:
- `Revision->getReviewerStatus()` -> `Revision->getReviewers()`
- `Revision->attachReviewerStatus()` -> `Revision->attachReviewers()`
- `Reviewer->getStatus()` -> `Reviewer->getReviewerStatus()` (this is mostly to make this more greppable)
Test Plan:
- bunch o' `grep`
- Browsed around.
- If I missed anything, it should fatal in an obvious way. We have a lot of other `getStatus()` calls and it's hard to be sure I got them all.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17522
Summary: Ref T10967. The old name was because we had a `getReviewers()` tied to `needRelationships()`, rename this method to use a simpler and more clear name.
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17519
