Summary: Fixes T4728, first pass, Make real name optional on user accounts
Test Plan: Default real name config should be false (not required). Create new user, real name should not be required. Toggle config, real name should be required. Users with no real name should be always listed by their usernames.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T4728
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9027
Summary:
Fixes T4379. Several changes:
- Migrate all project members into subscribers.
- When members are added or removed, subscribe or unsubscribe them.
- Show sub/unsub in the UI.
- Determine mailable membership of projects by querying subscribers.
Test Plan:
- As `duck`, joined a project.
- Added the project as a reviewer to a revision.
- Commented on the revision.
- Observed `duck` receive mail.
- Unsubscribed as `duck`.
- Observed no mail.
- Resubscribed as `duck`.
- Mail again.
- Joined/left project, checked sub/unsub status.
- Ran migration, looked at database.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, asherkin
Maniphest Tasks: T4379
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8189
Summary:
Ref T4361. Before we figure out which To/CC are addressable, try to expand To/CC. Specifically, the supported expansion right now is project PHIDs expanding to all their members.
Because of the way multiplexing works, we have to do this in two places: explicitly in `multiplexMail()`, and when sending mail that wasn't multiplexed. This is messy; eventually we can get rid of it (after ApplicationTransactions are everywhere).
This has some rough edges, but should basically give us what we need to make stuff like projects mailable. Particularly, it deals with most issues in D7436:
- I got around the resolution/multiplexing issue by resolving aggregate mailables separately from mailable actors.
- We get to keep the Project PHID as a To/CC/Reviewer/Whatever until the last second.
- Users won't get two emails for being a CC and also a member of a CC'd project.
- We can degrade to the list stuff this way if we want, by having the project aggregate yield a single list PHID.
Test Plan: Added a comment to a revision with a project reviewer, got mail to all the project's members.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4361
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8117
Summary:
Small step forward which improves existing stuff or lays groudwork for future stuff:
- Currently, to check for email verification, we have to single-query the email address on every page. Instead, denoramlize it into the user object.
- Migrate all the existing users.
- When the user verifies an email, mark them as `isEmailVerified` if the email is their primary email.
- Just make the checks look at the `isEmailVerified` field.
- Add a new check, `isUserActivated()`, to cover email-verified plus disabled. Currently, a non-verified-but-not-disabled user could theoretically use Conduit over SSH, if anyone deployed it. Tighten that up.
- Add an `isApproved` flag, which is always true for now. In a future diff, I want to add a default-on admin approval queue for new accounts, to prevent configuration mistakes. The way it will work is:
- When the queue is enabled, registering users are created with `isApproved = false`.
- Admins are sent an email, "[Phabricator] New User Approval (alincoln)", telling them that a new user is waiting for approval.
- They go to the web UI and approve the user.
- Manually-created accounts are auto-approved.
- The email will have instructions for disabling the queue.
I think this queue will be helpful for new installs and give them peace of mind, and when you go to disable it we have a better opportunity to warn you about exactly what that means.
Generally, I want to improve the default safety of registration, since if you just blindly coast through the path of least resistance right now your install ends up pretty open, and realistically few installs are on VPNs.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration, verified `isEmailVerified` populated correctly.
- Created a new user, checked DB for verified (not verified).
- Verified, checked DB (now verified).
- Used Conduit, People, Diffusion.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7572
Summary: Ref T2715. Had to start loading status information in the query class. Debated trying to clean up some of the attach / load stuff but decided to just add status under the new paradigm for now.
Test Plan: phid.query also made a status and checked that out. also played in conpherence.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T2715
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6585
Summary:
Ref T3306. This interface has a hard time balancing security/policy issues and I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Some possibilities:
# We just let you see everything from the web UI.
- This makes debugging easier.
- Anyone who can see this stuff can trivially take over any user's account with five seconds of work and no technical expertise (reset their password from the web UI, then go read the email and click the link).
# We let you see everything, but only for messages you were a recipient of or author of.
- This makes it much more difficult to debug issues with mailing lists.
- But maybe we could just say mailing list recipients are "public", or define some other ruleset.
- Generally this gets privacy and ease of use right.
# We could move the whole thing to the CLI.
- Makes the UI/UX way worse.
# We could strike an awkward balance between concerns, as we do now.
- We expose //who// sent and received messages, but not the content of the messages. This doesn't feel great.
I'm inclined to probably go with (2) and figure something out for mailing lists?
Anyway, irrespective of that this should generally make things more clear, and improves the code a lot if nothing else.
Test Plan:
{F49546}
- Looked at a bunch of mail.
- Sent mail from different apps.
- Checked that recipients seem correct.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3306
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6413
