Summary:
See PHI190. This clarifies the ruleset a bit:
- If you accepted, then the author used "Request Review" explicitly, we now show "Accepted Earlier" instead of "Accepted" in the "Reviewers" list on the main revision page. This makes it sligthly more clear why the revision is back in your review queue without picking through the transaction log.
- Instead of moving all non-current accepts into "Ready to Review", move only voided accepts into "Ready to Review". This stops us from pulling older accepts which haven't been voided (which could have been incorrectly pulled) and correctly pulls older, voided accepts from before an update (for example: accept, then request review, then update) and generally aligns better with intent/expectation.
Test Plan:
- Accepted, requested review.
- Saw reviewer as "Accepted Earlier".
- Saw review in "Ready to Review" bucket.
- Accepted, updated (with sticky accept).
- Saw reviewer as "Accepted Prior Diff".
- Saw review as "Waiting on Authors".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18764
Summary:
Depends on D18756. Fixes T12539. See PHI190. Currently, when this occurs:
- Alice accepts.
- Bailey requests review.
- Alice views her dashboard.
...the revision appears in "Waiting on Other Reviewers" (regardless of whether other reviewers actually exist or not).
Instead, ignore these voided/non-current accepts and let the revisions appear in "Ready to Review", which is more natural.
Test Plan: Went through the steps above. On `master`, saw revision in "Waiting on Other Reviewers". After patch, saw it in "Ready to Review".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12539
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18757
Summary:
Ref T2543. These are currently numeric values, like "0" and "3". I want to replace them with strings, like "accepted", and move definitions from Arcanist to Phabricator.
To set the stage for this, reduce the number of callsites where Phabricator invokes `ArcanistDifferentialRevisionStatus`.
This is just the easy ones. I'll hold this until the release cut.
Test Plan:
- Called `differential.find`.
- Called `differential.getrevision`.
- Called `differential.query`.
- Removed all reviewers from a revision, saw warning.
- Abandoned the no-reviewers revision, no more warning.
- Attached a revision to a task to get it to show the state icon with the status on a tooltip.
- Viewed revision bucketing on dashboard.
- Used `bin/search index` to reindex a revision.
- Hit the "Land Revision" endpoint.
I didn't explicitly test these cases:
- Doorkeeper Asana integration, since setup takes a thousand years.
- Disambiguation logic when multiple hashes match, since setup is also very involved.
- Releeph because it's Releeph.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18339
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 T10939. For various historical reasons, revision status is a numeric string. This comparison fails because it's `(string) !== (int)`. Just use `!=` so this will still work if we turn it into a real string in the future.
Test Plan: Tried a more specific test case locally, got better looking results in "Must Review" and "Should Review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15928
Summary:
Ref T10939. Ref T4144. This splits the existing buckets ("Blocking Others", "Action Required", "Waiting on Others") into 6-7 buckets with a stronger focus on what the next action you need to take is.
See T10939#175423 for some discussion.
Overall, I think some of the root problems here are caused by reviewer laziness and shotgun review workflows (where a ton of people get automatically added to everything, probably unnecessarily), but these buckets haven't been updated since the introduction of blocking reviewers or project/package reviewers and I think splitting the 3 buckets into 6 buckets isn't unreasonable, even though it's kind of a lot of buckets and the root problem here is approximately "I want to ignore a bunch of stuff on my dashboard".
I didn't remove the old bucketing code yet since it's still in use on the default homepage.
This also isn't quite right until I fix the tokenizer to work properly, since it won't bucket project/package reviewers accurately.
Test Plan: {F1395972}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4144, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15924
Summary:
Ref T10939. Currently, Differential hard-codes some behaviors for the "active" filter. This introduces "buckets" to make this grouping behavior more general/flexible.
The buckets don't actually do any grouping yet, this just gets rid of the `$query === 'active'` stuff so far.
These buckets change the page size to a large value, becuase pagination won't currently work with bucketing.
The problem is that we normally paginate by selecting one more result than we need: so if we're building a page of size 10, we'll select 11 results. This is fast, and if we get 11 back, we know there's a next page with at least one result on it.
With buckets, we can't do this, since our 11 results might come back in these buckets:
- A, B, C, A, C, C, A, A, B, B, (B)
So we know there are more results, and we know that bucket B has more results, but we have no clue if bucket A and bucket C have more results or not (or if there's anything in bucket D, etc).
We might need to select a thousand more results to get the first (D) or the next (A).
So we could render something like "Some buckets have more results, click here to go to the next page", but users would normally expect to be able to see "This specific bucket, A, has more results.", and we can't do that without a lot more work.
It doesn't really matter for revisions, because almost no one has 1K of them, but this may need to be resolved eventually.
(I have some OK-ish ideas for resolving it but nothing I'm particularly happy with.)
Test Plan: {F1376542}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15923
