Summary: See PHI333. Some of the cleanup at the tail end of the bulk edit changes made "Assign To" stop working properly, since we don't strip the `array(...)` off the `array(PHID)` value we receive.
Test Plan:
- Used bulk editor to assign and unassign tasks (single value datasource).
- Used bulk editor to change projects (multi-value datasource).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18975
Summary:
Ref T13049. When stuff executes asynchronously on the bulk workflow it can be hard to inspect directly, and/or a pain to test because you have to go through a bunch of steps to run it again.
Make future work here easier by making export triggerable from the CLI. This makes it easy to repeat, inspect with `--trace`, profile with `--xprofile`, etc.
Test Plan:
- Ran several invalid commands, got sensible error messages.
- Ran some valid commands, got exported data.
- Used `--xprofile` to look at the profile for a 300MB dump of 100K tasks which took about 40 seconds to export. Nothing jumped out as sketchy to me -- CustomField wrangling is a little slow but most of the time looked like it was being spent legitimately.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18965
Summary: Depends on D18946. Ref T13051. Begins writing edge transactions as just a list of changed PHIDs.
Test Plan: Added, edited, and removed projects. Reviewed transaction record and database. Saw no user-facing changes but a far more compact database representation.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13051
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18947
Summary:
Ref T13051. This puts a translation layer between the raw edge data in the transaction table and the UI that uses it.
The intent is to start writing new, more compact data soon. This class give us a consistent API for interacting with either the new or old data format, so we don't have to migrate everything upfront.
Test Plan: Browsed around, saw existing edge transactions render properly in transactions and feed. Added and removed subscribers and projects, saw good transaction rendering.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13051
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18946
Summary:
See PHI307. Currently, when reviews undraft, we retroactively add in older activity to the mail ("alice created this revision...").
However, we don't add that activity to the mail tags, so the relevant tags (like "revision created") are dropped forever.
Instead, use the same set of transactions for both mail body and mail tag construction.
This should be obsoleted in the relatively near future by T10448, but it's a better/more correct behavior in general and we probably can't get rid of tags completely for a while.
Test Plan:
Applied patch, created a revision with builds, saw it auto-undraft after builds finished. Used `bin/mail list-outbound` and `bin/mail show-outbound` to see the mail. Verified that it included retroactive text ("created this revision") AND retroactive tags.
Note that the tag for "A new revision is created" is `DifferentialTransaction::MAILTAG_REVIEW_REQUEST` with literal value `differential-review-request`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18941
Summary:
Ref T13025. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/bulk-edit-no-actions-available/1011/1>.
I'm not sure if this is what the user is seeing, but in Chrome, the `<select />` does not automatically get set to the first valid value like it does in Safari.
Set it to the first valid value explicitly.
Test Plan: In Chrome, bulk editor previously hit a JS error when trying to read a bad action off the `<select />`. After patch, bulk edits go through cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18923
Summary: Ref T13025. Fixes T10973. Fairly straightforward. The "points" type is just an alias for "text" today.
Test Plan: Bulk edited points.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10973
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18889
Summary: Ref T13025. This makes limits (for fields like "Assign To") work in the bulk editor, so you can't type "Assign to: x, y, z" anymore.
Test Plan: Hit limit for "Assign to" and a custom project field. No limit for "Add subscribers".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18888
Summary:
Fixes T13042. This hooks up the new "silent" mode from D18882 and makes it actually work.
The UI (where we tell you to go run some command and then reload the page) is pretty clumsy, but should solve some problems for now and can be cleaned up eventually. The actual mechanics (timeline aggregation, Herald interaction, etc.) are on firmer ground.
Test Plan:
- Made a normal bulk edit, got mail and feed stories.
- Made a silent bulk edit, no mail and no feed.
- Saw "Silent Edit" marker in timeline for silent edits:
{F5386245}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18883
Summary:
Ref T13042. This adds a "silent" edit mechanism which suppresses feed stories, email, and notifications.
The other behaviors here are:
- The transactions are marked as "silent" so we can render a hint in the UI in the future to make it clear to users that they aren't missing email.
- If the editor uses Herald, mail rules are suppressed so they don't fire incorrectly (this mostly affects "the first time this rule matches, send me an email" rules: without this, they'd match "the first time" on the bulk edit, not send email, then never match again since they already matched).
- If the edit queues additional edits, those are applied silently too.
This doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) actually change any behavior since you can't apply silent edits yet.
Test Plan:
Somewhat theoretical, since this isn't reachable yet. Should get meaningful testing in an upcoming change.
Did a bit of var_dump() / debug poking to attempt to verify that nothing too crazy is happening.
Viewed and edited objects, no changes in behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18882
Summary:
Ref T13042. This is a very, very old policy-violating option from yesteryear which supported build systems publishing updates by adding comments to revisions, without sending email about it.
Harbormaster has served this role for a long time and this is policy-violating in the general case (it allows attackers to act in secret).
Test Plan: Grepped for affected symbols.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18881
Summary: Ref T13025. We're getting kind of a lot of actions, so put them in nice groups so they're easier to work with.
Test Plan: {F5386038}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18880
Summary:
Ref T13025. This is some minor technical stuff: make the "select" bulk edit type a little more consistent with other types by passing data down instead of having it reach up the stack. This simplifies the implementation of a custom field "select" in a future change.
Also, provide an option list to the "select" edit field for object subtypes. This is only accessible via Conduit so it currently never actually renders anything in the UI, but with the bulk edit stuff we get some initialization order issues if we don't set anything. This will also make any future changes which expose subtypes more broadly more straightforward.
Test Plan:
- Bulk edited "select" fields, like "Status" and "Priority".
- No more fatal when trying to `getOptions()` internally on the subtype field.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18878
Summary:
Ref T13025. Custom field transactions work somewhat unusually: the values sometimes need to be encoded. We currently do not apply this encoding correctly via Conduit.
For example, setting some custom PHID field to `["PHID-X-Y"]` fails with a bunch of JSON errors.
Add an extra hook callback so that EditTypes can apply processing to transaction values, then apply the correct CustomField processing.
This only affects Conduit. In a future diff, this also allows bulk edit of custom fields to work correctly.
Test Plan: Added a custom field to Maniphest with a list of projects. Used Conduit to bulk edit it (which now works, but did not before). Used the web UI to bulk edit it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18876
Summary:
Ref T13025. Currently, the bulk editor takes an HTTP request and emits a list of "raw" transactions (simple dictionaries). This goes into the job queue, and the background job builds a real transaction.
However, the logic to turn an HTTP request into a raw transaction is ending up with some duplication, since we generally already have logic to turn an HTTP request into a full object.
Instead: build real objects first, then serialize them to dictionaries. Send those to the job queue, rebuild them into objects again, and we end up in the same spot with a little less code duplication.
Finally, delete the mostly-copied code.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to add comments, projects, and rename tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18875
Summary:
Ref T13025. See PHI173. This supports the "Assign to" field in the new editor.
This is very slightly funky: to unassign tasks, you need to leave the field blank. I have half a diff to fix this, but the way the `none()` token works in the default datasource is odd so it needs a separate datasource. I'm punting on this for now since it works, at least, and isn't //completely// unreasonable.
This also simplifies some EditEngine stuff a little. Notably:
- I reorganized EditType construction slightly so subclasses can copy/paste a little bit less.
- EditType had `field` and `editField` properties which had the same values. I canonicalized on `editField` and made this value set a little more automatically.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to reassign some tasks. By leaving the field blank, unassigned tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18874
Summary: Depends on D18867. Ref T13025. Fixes T8740. Rebuilds the tag/subscriber actions (add, remove, set) into the bulk editor.
Test Plan: Added, removed and set these values via bulk edit.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T8740
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18868
Summary:
Depends on D18866. Ref T13025. Fixes T12415. This makes the old "Add Comment" action work, and adds support for a new "Set description to" action (possibly, I could imagine "append description" being useful some day, maybe).
The implementation is just a `<textarea />`, not a whole fancy remarkup box with `[Bold] [Italic] ...` buttons, preview, typeaheads, etc. It would be nice to enrich this eventually but doing the rendering in pure JS is currently very involved.
This requires a little bit of gymnastics to get the transaction populated properly, and adds some extra validation since we need some code there anyway.
Test Plan:
- Changed the description of a task via bulk editor.
- Added a comment to a task via bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T12415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18867
Summary: Depends on D18864. Ref T13025. Adds bulk edit support back for "status" and "priority" using `<select />` controls.
Test Plan:
Used bulk editor to change status and priority for tasks.
{F5374436}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18866
Summary:
Depends on D18862. See PHI173. Ref T13025. Fixes T10005. This redefines bulk edits in terms of EditEngine fields, rather than hard-coding the whole thing.
Only text fields -- and, specifically, only the "Title" field -- are supported after this change. Followup changes will add more bulk edit parameter types and broader field support.
However, the title field now works without any Maniphest-specific code, outside of the small amount of binding code in the `ManiphestBulkEditor` subclass.
Test Plan: Used the bulk edit workflow to change the titles of tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18863
Summary:
Depends on D18806. Ref T13025. See PHI173. Currently, Maniphest bulk edits are processed by a Maniphest-specific worker. I want to replace this with a generic worker which can apply transactional edits to any object.
This implements a generic worker, although it has no callers yet. Future changes give it callers, and later remove the Maniphest-specific worker.
Test Plan: See next changes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18862
Summary:
Depends on D18805. Ref T13025. Fixes T10268.
Instead of using a list of IDs for the bulk editor, power it with SearchEngine queries. This gives us the full power of SearchEngine and lets us use a query key instead of a list of 20,000 IDs to avoid issues with URL lengths.
Also, split it into a base `BulkEngine` and per-application subclasses. This moves us toward T10005 and universal support for bulk operations.
Also:
- Renames most of "batch" to "bulk": we're curently inconsitent about this, I like "bulk" better since I think it's more clear if you don't regularly interact with `.bat` files, and newer stuff mostly uses "bulk".
- When objects in the result set can't be edited because you don't have permission, show the status more clearly.
This probably breaks some stuff a bit since I refactored so heavily, but it seems mostly OK from poking around. I'll clean up anything I missed in followups to deal with remaining items on T13025.
Test Plan:
{F5302300}
- Bulk edited from Maniphest.
- Bulk edited from a workboard (no more giant `?ids=....` in the URL).
- Hit most of the error conditions, I think?
- Clicked the "Cancel" button.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10268
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18806
Summary:
Depends on D18845. See PHI243 for context and more details.
Briefly, some objects need a "type" transaction (or something similar) very early on, and we can't generate their fields until we know the object type. Drydock blueprints are an example: a blueprint's fields depend on the blueprint's type.
In web interfaces, the workflow just forces the user to select a type first. For Conduit workflows, I think the cleanest approach is to proactively extract and apply type information before processing the request. This will make the implementation a little messier, but the API cleaner.
An alternative is to add more fields to the API, like a "type" field. This makes the implementation cleaner, but the API messier. I think we're better off favoring a cleaner API here.
This change just makes it possible for `DrydockBlueprintEditEngine` to look at the incoming transactions and extract a "type"; it doesn't actually change any behavior.
Test Plan: Performed edits via API, but this change doesn't alter any behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18847
Summary:
Depends on D18851. Ref T13035. After D18819, revision creation transactions may be split into two groups (if prototypes are enabled).
This split means we have two workers. The first worker doesn't publish feed stories or mail; the second one does.
Currently, both workers call `shouldPublishFeedStory()` before they queue, and then again after the daemons pull them out of the queue. However, the answer to this question can change.
Specifically, this happens:
- `arc` creates a revision.
- The first transaction group applies, creating the revision as a draft, and returns `false` from `shouldPublishFeedStory()`, and does not generate related PHIDs. It queues a daemon to send mail, expecting it not to publish a feed story.
- The second transaction group applies, promoting the revision to "needs review". Since the revision has promoted, `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true. This editor generates related PHIDs and queues a daemon task, expecting it to send mail / publish feed.
- A few milliseconds pass.
- The first job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. It does not have any feed metadata because the object wasn't publishable when the job was queued -- but `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true, so it tries to publish a story without any metadata available. Slightly bad stuff happens (see below).
- The second job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. This one has metadata and works fine.
The "slightly bad stuff" is that we publish an empty feed story with no references to any objects, then try to push it to hooks and other listeners. Since it doesn't have any references, it fails to load during the "push to external listeners" phase.
This is harmless but clutters the log and doesn't help anything.
Instead, cache the state of "are we publishing a feed story for this object?" when we queue the worker so it can't race.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald triggers for Harbormaster build plans.
- Ran `bin/phd debug task` in one window.
- Created a revision in a separate window.
- Before patch: saw "unable to load feed story" errors in the daemon log.
- After patch: no more "unable to load feed story" errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18852
Summary:
Ref: https://admin.phacility.com/PHI243
Since our use case primarily focuses on transaction editing, this patch implements the `drydock.blueprint.edit` api method with the understanding that:
a) this is a work in progress
b) object editing is supported, but object creation is not yet implemented
Test Plan:
* updated existing blueprints via Conduit UI
* regression tested `maniphest.edit` by creating new and updating existing tasks
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, yelirekim, jcox
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18822
Summary:
Fixes T13027. Ref T2543. When revisions promote from "Draft" because builds finish or no builds are configured, the status currently switches from "Draft" to "Needs Review" without re-running Herald.
This means that some rules -- notably, "Send me an email" rules -- don't fire as soon as they should.
Instead of applying this promotion in a hacky way inline, queue it and apply it normally in a second edit, after the current group finishes.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision, reviewed Herald transcripts.
- Saw three Herald passes:
- First pass (revision creation) triggered builds and no email.
- Second pass (builds finished) did not trigger builds (no update) and did not trigger email (revision still a draft).
- Third pass (after promotion out of 'draft') did not trigger builds (no update) but did trigger email (revision no longer a draft).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13027, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18819
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/daemons-tasks-crashing-in-a-loop-during-reindex/506/1>. Some object types (for example, Passphrase Credentials) support indexing but not commenting.
Make `withComments(...)` work properly if the transaction type does not support comments.
Test Plan:
Indexed a credential (no comments) and a revision (comments) with `bin/search index --trace ...`.
Before, credential fataled.
After, credetial succeeds, and skips the transaction query.
Before and after, the revision queries the transaction table.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18667
Summary:
Ref T12997. Although we can't query by transaction type (since we can't easily enumerate all possible types which may have comments -- inline types may also have comments), we //can// just check if there's a comment row or not.
This reduces the amount of garbage we need to load to rebuild indexes for unusual objects with hundreds and hundreds of mentions.
Test Plan:
- Used batch editor to mention a task 700 times.
- Indexed it before and after this change, saw index time drop from {nav 1600ms > 160ms}.
- Made some new comments on it, verified that they still indexed/queried properly.
- Browsed around, made normal transactions, made inline comments.
- Added a unique word to an inline comment, indexed revision, searched for word, found revision.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12997
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18660
Summary:
Ref T2543. This doesn't stand alone since mail still goes out normally, but gets this piece working: new revisions start as "Draft", then after updates if there are no builds they go into "Needs Review".
This should work in general because builds update revisions when they complete, to publish a "Harbormaster finished build yada yada" transaction. So either we'll un-draft immediately, or un-draft after the last build finishes.
I'll hold this until the mail and some other stuff (like UI hints) are in slightly better shape since I think it's probably too rough on its own.
Test Plan: Created revisions locally, saw them un-draft after builds.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18628
Summary: This simplifies EditEngine pages in general by removing the dual header, and extending to allow setting of a custom PHUIHeaderView if needed (like settings).
Test Plan:
Review all settings pages, review task, project pages. This should all be fine, but is a big change maybe some layouts I'm not considering. Tested these all mobile, destkop as well.
{F5166181}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18527
Summary:
Ref T12819. Some of the extensions "enrich" the document (adding more fields or relationships), while others "index" it (insert it into some kind of index for later searching).
Currently, these are all muddled under a single "index" phase. However, the Ferret extension cares about fields and relationships which other extensions may add.
Split this into two phases: "enrich" adds fields and relationships so other extensions can read them later if they want. "Index" happens after the document is built and has all the fields and relationships.
The specific problem this solves is that comments may not have been added to the document when the Ferret extension runs. By moving them to the "enrich" phase, the Ferret engine will be able to see and index comments.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/search index ...`, grepped for `indexFulltextDocument`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12819
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18513
Summary:
Ref T2543. When called from the UI to build the dropdown, there's no Editor, since we aren't actually in an edit flow.
This logic worked for actually performing the edits, just not for getting the option into the dropdown.
Test Plan: Used the dropdown to close an "Accepted" revision which I authored.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18490
Summary:
Ref T5873. This provides paths and line numbers for inline comments.
This is a touch hacky but I was able to keep it mostly under control.
Test Plan:
- Made inline comments.
- Called API, got path/line information.
{F5120157}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18469
Summary: Minor cleanup, this logic can be simpler. Instead of special-casing inlines as having an effect if the have a comment, just consider any transaction with a comment to have an effect. I'm fairly certain this is always true.
Test Plan: Made inlines, tried to submit empty comments. Behavior unchanged.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18468
Summary:
Ref T5873. See PHI14. I don't want to just expose internal transaction data to Conduit by default, since it's often: unstable, unusable, sensitive, or some combination of the three.
Instead, let ModularTransactions opt in to providing additional data to Conduit, similar to other infrastructure. If a transaction doesn't, the API returns an empty skeleton for it. This is generally fine since most transactions have no real use cases, and I think we can fill them in as we go.
This also probably builds toward T5726, which would likely use the same format, and perhaps simply not publish stuff which did not opt in.
This doesn't actually cover "comment" or "inline comment", which are presumably what PHI14 is after, since neither is modular. I'll probably just put a hack in place for this until they can modularize since I suspect modularizing them here is difficult.
Test Plan: Ran `transaction.search` on a revision, saw some transactions (title and status transactions) populate with values.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18467
Summary:
Ref T5873. See PHI14. This does the basics that are shared across everything (IDs, PHIDs, dates, comments).
It doesn't do types (I think I don't necessarily want to expose internal types over the API?) or transaction-specific data.
In the next change, I'm going to add ways to let ModularTransactions "opt-in" to providing more data to Conduit. I'll use this to flesh out the actual desired transaction types (comments, presumably inline comments) and likely leave the rest as skeletons for now until use cases arise so we don't create a backward compatibility issue (or a security issue!) by exposing tons of internal stuff as public-facing API.
Test Plan:
Ran queries, used paging. Retrieved an edited, deleted, and normal comment.
{F5120060}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18466
Summary: Simplifies the page, adds base support for PHUITwoColumn fixed from Instances (which I'll delete css there).
Test Plan:
click on every settings page, UI seems in tact, check mobile, desktop, mobile menus.
{F5102572}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18436
Summary: Moves Settings to use a normal side navigation vs. a two column side navigation. It also updates Edit Engine to do the same, but I don't think there are other callsites. Added a consistent header for better clarification if you were editng your settings, global settings, or a bot's settings.
Test Plan: Test each page on a personal account, create global settings, test each page there, create a bot account, and test each page on the bot account. Anything else?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18342
Summary: Cursory research indicates that "login" is a noun, referring to a form, and "log in" is a verb, referring to the action of logging in. I went though every instances of 'login' I could find and tried to clarify all this language. Also, we have "Phabricator" on the registration for like 4-5 times, which is a bit verbose, so I tried to simplify that language as well.
Test Plan: Tested logging in and logging out. Pages feel simpler.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18322
Summary:
Ref T12124. After D18134 we accept either "25" or "low" via HTTP parameters and when the field renders as a control, but if the form has a default value for the field but locks or hides it we don't actually run through that logic.
Canonicalize both when rendering the control and when using a raw saved default value.
Test Plan:
- Created a form with "Priority: Low".
- Hid the "Priority" field.
- Before patch: Tried to create a task, was rebuffed with a (now verbose and helpful, after D18135) error.
- Applied patch: things worked.
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18142
Summary:
Ref T12124. This is a fairly narrow fix for existing saved EditEngine forms with a default priority value.
These saved forms have a numeric (or probably "string-numeric") default value, like "50". They lost their meaning after D18111, when "50" no longer appears in the dropdown. Instead, these forms all select the highest available priority.
At time of writing, this form was broken on this install, for example:
> https://secure.phabricator.com/transactions/editengine/maniphest.task/view/13/
Additionally, `/task/edit/form/123/?priority=...` (for templating forms) stopped working with `priority=50`. This isn't nearly as important, but a larger and more sudden compatiblity break than we need to make.
Add support for an "alias map" on `<select />` controls, so if the value comes in with something we don't recognize we'll treat it like some other value. Then alias all the numeric constants -- and other keywords -- to the right constants.
This ended up only affecting the `<select />` control in the web UI.
Test Plan:
- On `stable`, created a form with "Priority: Low".
- Before patch: form has "Priority: Unbreak Now!" on `master`.
- After patch: form has "Priority: Low" again.
- Used `?priority=25`, `?priority=wish`, `?priority=wishlist` to template forms: all forms worked.
Reviewers: amckinley, chad
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18134
Summary:
Ref T12314. Open to counterdiffs / iterating / suggestions / skipping most or all of this, mostly just throwing this out there as a maybe-reasonable first pass.
When a task has a subtype (like "Plant" or "Animal"), provide some hints on the task list, workboards, and task detail.
To make these hints more useful, allow subtypes to have icons and colors.
Also use these icons and colors in the typeahead tokens.
The current rule is that we show the subtype if it's not the default subtype. Another rule we could use is "show the subtype if there's more than one subtype defined", but my guess is that most installs will mostly have something like "normal task" as the default subtype.
Test Plan:
The interfaces this affects are: task detail view, task list view, workboard cards, subtype typeahead.
{F3539128}
{F3539144}
{F3539167}
{F3539185}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: johnny-bit, bbrdaric, benwick, fooishbar
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17451
Summary: Ref T12732. Use `renderValue()` to build `renderValueList()` so we get nice fancy text for these.
Test Plan: {F4967410}
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12732
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17966
Summary: Also changes access modifiers on `PhabricatorProjectTransactionEditor` and sets up `storage` for `applyExternalEffects`.
Test Plan: Created new projects, attempted to create without name, with too long of a name, and with a name that conflicts with other projects and observed expected errors.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T12673
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17947
Summary: Used by `PholioImageFileTransaction::mergeTransactions()`. I forgot to test adding multiple images to a Mock at the same time after migrating `mergeTransactions` over to the modular framework.
Test Plan: Added multiple images in a single transaction and didn't get an exception about accessing a protected function.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17946
Summary: Still needs some cleanup, but ready for review in broad outline form.
Test Plan:
Made lots of policy changes to the Badges application and confirmed expected rows in `application_xactions`, confirmed expected changes to `phabricator.application-settings`.
See example output (not quite working for custom policy objects) here:
{F4922240}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, chad, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T11476
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17757
Summary: See D17812, etc. We can figure this out by looking at the object carefully. We don't need to go delete all the old TYPE_COMMENT (it doesn't hurt anything) but can nuke it when we see it.
Test Plan:
- Made a comment in Slowvote (supports commenting).
- Viewed an Almanac device (does not support commenting).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17822
Summary: Moves participants over to ModularTransactions, simplified a lot of the code. Fixes T12550
Test Plan:
Create a new room with just myself and myself + fake accounts.
Remove a person.
Remove myself.
Edit a room, topic.
Type some messages.
???
Profit
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12550
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17685
Summary:
Fixes T12356.
- In this mail, we currently render "6:00 AM". Instead, render "6:00 AM (PDT)" or similar. This is consistent with times in other modern Transaction mail.
- Previously, we would render "UTC-7". Render "PDT" instead. For obscure zones with no known timezone abbreviation, fall back to "UTC-7".
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/calendar notify --minutes X` to trigger notifications, read email bodies.
- Used this script to list all `T` values and checked them for sanity:
```lang=php
<?php
$now = new DateTime();
$locales = DateTimeZone::listIdentifiers();
foreach ($locales as $locale) {
$zone = new DateTimeZone($locale);
$now->setTimeZone($zone);
printf(
"%s (%s)\n",
$locale,
$now->format('T'));
}
```
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12356
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17646
Summary:
Fixes T12502. This transaction probably should not be getting picked for feed rendering, but it currently does get selected in some cases.
This should probably be revisited eventually (e.g., when Maniphest moves to ModularTransactions) but just fix the brokenness for now.
Test Plan:
- Created a task in a space.
- Viewed feed.
- Saw the story render with readable text.
{F4555747}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12502
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17609
If we try to render an edge transaction which uses unknown edge constants,
it turns out we fatal. Degrade instead. This happened when viewing very old
badges.
Auditors: chad
Summary:
Fixes T12369. When you create objects they may technically be locked: either because the default state is legitimately locked, or because the default policies prevent you from viewing so we sort of technically end in a locked state.
Regardless, don't prompt during creation, since this prompt isn't useful even if the lock detection is completely legitimate.
Test Plan:
- In {nav Applications > Maniphest > Configure}, set "Default View Policy" to "No One".
- Tried to create a task.
- Before patch: prompted to override lock.
- After patch: no override prompt.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: d.maznekov
Maniphest Tasks: T12369
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17541
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: Fixes T12439. This pathway was just missing a `setContinueOnMissingFields(...)` to skip enforcement of required fields.
Test Plan:
- Added a required custom field.
- Mentioned any task without a field value in a comment.
- Edited that comment.
- Saved changes.
- Before fix: fatal in log.
- After fix: clean edit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12439
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17536
Summary: Fixes T12434. I accidentally copy/pasted this too much in D17442.
Test Plan: Viewed a form edit page, no longer saw two copies of this action.
Reviewers: chad, cspeckmim
Reviewed By: chad, cspeckmim
Maniphest Tasks: T12434
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17530
Summary: Ref T12270. Builds out a BadgeCache for PhabricatorUser, primarily for Timeline, potentially feed? This should still work if we later let people pick which two, just switch query in BadgeCache.
Test Plan: Give out badges, test timeline for displaying badges from handles and without queries. Revoke a badge, see cache change.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12270
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17503
Summary: Fixes T12398. This adds `withBadgeStatuses` as a query parameter when searching for Awards to show. In most (all?) cases we currently only show active badges.
Test Plan: Assign myself a badge, archive it and verify it does not appear on profile, comment form, or timeline.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17499
Summary: Fixes T10698. This shows badges under the comment preview if the application uses TransactionCommentView. I suspect not everything does, but will pick the fix up for free when modernized.
Test Plan: Test commenting on a task with and without a user that has a badge. See badge preview.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10698
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17480
Summary:
Ref T12337. Ref T5873. This provides a generic "edge.search" method which feels like other "verison 3" `*.search` methods.
The major issues here are:
1. Edges use constants internally, which aren't great for an API.
2. A lot of edges are internal and probably not useful to query.
3. Edges don't have a real "id", so paginating them properly is challenging.
I've solved these things like this:
- Edges must opt-in to being available via Conduit by providing a human-readable key (like "mention" instead of "52"). This solvs (1) and (2).
- I faked a mostly-reasonable behavior for paginating.
Test Plan:
Ran various valid and invalid searches. Paginated a large search. Reviewed UI.
{F3651818}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12337, T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17462
Summary: Fixes T12347. Ref T12314. Validation gets called no matter what, but is only relevant if the form supports subtypes.
Test Plan: Marked/unmarked a Paste form as editable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12347, T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17457
Summary:
Ref T12335. See that task for discussion. Here are the behavioral changes:
- Statuses can be flagged with `locked`, which means that tasks in that status are locked to further discussion and interaction.
- A new "CAN_INTERACT" permission facilitates this. For most objects, "CAN_INTERACT" is just the same as "CAN_VIEW".
- For tasks, "CAN_INTERACT" is everyone if the status is a normal status, and no one if the status is a locked status.
- If a user doesn't have "Interact" permission:
- They can not submit the comment form.
- The comment form is replaced with text indicating "This thing is locked.".
- The "Edit" workflow prompts them.
This is a mixture of advisory and hard policy checks but sholuld represent a reasonable starting point.
Test Plan: Created a new "Locked" status, locked a task. Couldn't comment, saw lock warning, saw lock prompt on edit. Unlocked a task.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17453
Summary:
Ref T12335. Fixes T11207. Edit-like interactions which are not performed via "Edit <object>" are a bit of a grey area, policy-wise.
For example, you can correctly do these things to an object you can't edit:
- Comment on it.
- Award tokens.
- Subscribe or unsubscribe.
- Subscribe other users by mentioning them.
- Perform review.
- Perform audit.
- (Maybe some other stuff.)
These behaviors are all desirable and correct. But, particularly now that we offer stacked actions, you can do a bunch of other stuff which you shouldn't really be able to, like changing the status and priority of tasks you can't edit, as long as you submit the change via the comment form.
(Before the advent of stacked actions there were fewer things you could do via the comment form, and more of them were very "grey area", especially since "Change Subscribers" was just "Add Subscribers", which you can do via mentions.)
This isn't too much of a problem in practice because we won't //show// you those actions if the edit form you'd end up on doesn't have those fields. So on intalls like ours where we've created simple + advanced flows, users who shouldn't be changing task priorities generally don't see an option to do so, even though they technically could if they mucked with the HTML.
Change this behavior to be more strict: unless an action explicitly says that it doesn't need edit permission (comment, review, audit) don't show it to users who don't have edit permission and don't let them take the action.
Test Plan:
- As a user who could not edit a task, tried to change status via comment form; received policy exception.
- As a user who could not edit a task, viewed a comment form: no actions available (just "comment").
- As a user who could not edit a revision, viewed a revision form: only "review" actions available (accept, resign, etc).
- Viewed a commit form but these are kind of moot because there's no separate edit permission.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335, T11207
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17452
Summary:
Ref T12314. Ref T6064. Ref T11580. If an install defines several different task create forms (like "Create Plant" and "Create Animal"), allow any of them to be created directly onto a workboard column.
This is just a general consistency improvement that makes Custom Forms and Workboards work together a bit better. We might do something fancier eventually for T6064 (which wants fewer clicks) and/or T11580 (which wants per-workboard control over forms or defaults).
Test Plan:
- Created several different types of tasks directly onto a workboard.
- Faked just one create form, saw the UI unchanged (except that it respects any renaming).
{F3492928}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314, T11580, T6064
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17446
Summary:
Ref T12314. When we pick an "Edit" form for a subtyped object, only consider forms with the same subtype.
For example, editing an "Animal" uses the forms with subtype "animal" which are marked as edit forms.
This also makes "Create Subtask" carry the parent task's type.
Test Plan:
- Edited an Animal, got an animal edit form.
- Edited a normal task, got a normal task form.
- Edited a paste, got the normal workflow.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17445
Summary:
Ref T12314. Allow tasks to be queried by subtype using a typeahead.
Open to a better default icon. I'll probably let you configure them later.
Just hide this constraint if there's only one subtype.
Test Plan:
- Searched for subtypes.
- Verified that the control hides if there is only one subtype.
{F3492293}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17444
Summary:
Ref T12314. If you set a form to have the "plant" subtype, then create a task with it, save "plant" as the task subtype.
For Conduit, the default subtype is used by default, but a new "subtype" transaction is exposed. You can apply this transaction at create time to create an object of a certain subtype, or at any later time to change the subtype of an object.
This still doesn't do anything particularly useful or interesting.
Test Plan:
- Created a non-subtyped object (a Paste).
- Created "task" and "plant" tasks via different forms.
- Created "default" and "plant" tasks via Conduit.
- Changed the subtype of a task via Conduit.
- Tried to set a bad subtype.
{F3492061}
{F3492066}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17443
Summary:
Ref T12314. This adds a "Change Form Subtype" workflow to the EditEngine form configuration screen, for forms that edit/create objects which support subtyping (for now, only tasks).
For example, this allows you to switch a form from being a "task" form to a "plant" or "animal" form.
Doing this doesn't yet do anything useful or interesting. I'm also not showing it in the UI yet since I'm not sure what we should make that look like (presumably, we should just echo whatever UI we end up with on tasks).
Test Plan:
- Changed the subtype of a task form.
- Verified that the "Change Subtype" action doesn't appear on other forms (for example, those for Pastes).
{F3491374}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17442
Summary: Ref T12314. Provides a field on tasks for storing subtypes. Does nothing interesting yet.
Test Plan:
- Ran storage upgrade.
- Created some tasks.
- Looked in the database.
- Used Conduit to query some tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17441
Summary:
Ref T12314. Builds toward letting you define "animal" and "plant" tasks.
This just adds some configuration. I'll probably add some more quality-of-life options (like "icon") later but these are the only bits I'm sure I'll need.
Test Plan:
- Configured sensible subtypes.
- Tried to configure bad subtypes: bad key, missing "default", duplicate keys. Got sensible error messages.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17440
Summary:
Ref T12314. This adds storage so EditEngine forms can later be marked as edit fields for particular types of objects (like an "animal edit form" vs a "plant edit form").
We'll take you to the right edit form when you click "Edit" by selecting among forms with the same subtype as the task.
This doesn't do anything very interesting on its own.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade`.
- Verified database got the field with proper values.
- Created a new form, checked the database.
- Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12314
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17439
Summary: Ref T6049. This moves Phurl to modular transactions.
Test Plan: Everything works here, add phurl, edit phurl, use phurl. Test various error states. Left a TODO on the validate dupe keys, not sure how to implement that in modular-land.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T6049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17405
Summary:
Fixes T12302. Currently, we aren't merging multiple "AddAuditors" transactions correctly.
This can occur when Herald triggers multiple auditor rules.
Instead, merge them.
Test Plan:
- Wrote two different Herald rules that add auditors.
- Pushed a commit which triggered them.
- After the change, saw all the auditors get added correctly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12302
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17403
Summary:
Fixes T12172. Fixes T12060. This allows runtime code building CSS for mail to read CSS variables, then makes all the code do that.
It reverts the non-colorblind red/green to the colors in use before T12060, which seem better for non-colorblind users since no one really complained?
Test Plan:
- Viewed code diffs in Web UI.
- Viewed prose diffs in Web UI.
- Viewed code diffs in email.
- Viewed prose diffs in email.
All modes respected the accessibility color scheme.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12172, T12060
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17269
Summary:
Fixes T12301. In D17372, this changed to use generic EditEngines instead of the proper runtime engine. Normally this doesn't matter, but can in this case.
After loading the configurations normally, swap their attached engines for the specific configured runtime engine we're currently executing.
Test Plan: Clicked "Create Form" from the Maniphest form list, saw it go to "Create Maniphest Form", not "Create Generic Meta-Form".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12301
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17398
Summary: Ref T10390. Simplifies dropdown by rolling out canUseInPanel in useless panels
Test Plan: Add a query panel, see less options.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10390
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17341
Summary:
Fixes T12281. Some forms (like Settings) can't actually create new objects. Currently, though, you can select them and add them to profile menus; if you do, they fail when building an item.
Kick them out of the typeahead, and decline to render them in menus.
Test Plan:
Added "Create Settings" to a menu, no longer fatals after patch (item vanished from menu, still editable normally to get rid of it).
Tried to add another "Create Settings", no longer available in typehaead.
Added some normal stuff.
Viewed a choose-among-forms dropdown in Maniphest, which still worked normally.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12281
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17372
Summary: Fixes T9336. Kind of a bit to back up and find the source, but works easily.
Test Plan: View feed, click on my image.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9336
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17322
Summary:
Ref T12128. This adds validation to menu items.
This feels a touch flimsy-ish (kind of copy/paste heavy?) but maybe it can be cleaned up a bit once some similar lightweight modular item types (build steps in Harbormaster, blueprints in Drydock) convert.
Test Plan:
- Tried to create each item with errors (no dashboard, no project, etc). Got appropriate form errors.
- Created valid items of each type.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12128
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17235
Summary: Ref T5867. Instead of hard-coding projects, tasks and repositories, let EditEngines say "I want a quick create item" so third-party code can also hook into the menu without upstream changes.
Test Plan: Saw same default items in menu.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5867
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17215
Summary: Fixes T6660. Uses the new stuff in Audit to build an EditEngine-aware icon.
Test Plan: {F2364304}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6660
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17208
Summary:
Fixes T12095. Ref T6660. The old code for this was specific to Differential, using the `DifferentialDraft` table.
Instead, make the `EditEngine` / `VersionedDraft` code create and remove a `<objectPHID, authorPHID>` edge when a particular author creates drafts.
Some applications have drafts beyond `VersionedDrafts`, notably inline comments. Before writing "yes, draft" or "no, no draft", ask the object if it has any custom draft stuff we need to know about.
This should fix all the yellow bubble bugs I created in T11114 and allow us to bring the feature to Audit fairly easily.
Test Plan: Created and deleted comments and inlines, reloading the list view after each change. Couldn't find a way to break the list view anymore.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12095, T6660
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17205
Summary: Ref T11114. Ref T10978. These hadn't made it over to EditEngine yet.
Test Plan:
- Took various actions on revisions and commits.
- Used `bin/mail show-outbound --id ...` to examine the "Vary Subject", saw it properly generate "[Accepted]", "[Resigned]", etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114, T10978
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17191
Summary: Add in some basic defaults, Tasks, Projects, Repositories... anything else? Also switches "manage" context if you are an admin or user. Hides link if you are not logged in.
Test Plan: Review Global/Personal in Favorites app, click on each link.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17174
Summary:
Ref T12074. The "v3" API methods (`*.search`, `*.edit`) are currently marked as "unstable", but they're pretty stable and essentially all new code should be using them.
Although these methods are seeing some changes, almost all changes are additive (support for new constraints or attachemnts) and do not break backward compatibility. We have no major, compatibility-breaking changes planned.
I don't want to mark the older methods "deprecated" yet since `arc` still uses a lot of them and there are some capabilities not yet available on the v3 methods, but introduce a new "frozen" status with pointers to the new methods.
Overall, this should gently push users toward the newer methods.
Test Plan: {F2325323}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12074
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17158
Summary: Fixes T12068. These are inbound messages, not outbound.
Test Plan: Read carefully.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12068
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17144
Summary: Adds a FormEditEngine MenuItem for adding forms to Projects, Home, QuickCreate. Also adds an EditEngine typeahead that has token rendering issues currently.
Test Plan: Set a normal form as a menu item, edit it, set the name. Set a custom form as a menu item, edit it, set a name.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17098
Summary: Tweaks the diff colors here a bit, as well as making full diffs slightly easier to read in full. Ref T12060
Test Plan:
Tested prose diffs, email prose diffs, and a regular Differential revision.
{F2304056}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12060
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17138
Summary:
Ref T11114. When a user selects "Accept", and then selects "Reject", remove the "Accept". It does not make sense to both accept and reject a revision.
For now, every one of the "actions" conflicts: accept, reject, resign, claim, close, commandeer, etc, etc. I couldn't come up with any combinations that it seems like users are reasonably likely to want to try, and we haven't received combo-action requests in the past that I can recall.
Test Plan:
- Selected "Accept", then selected "Reject". One replaced the other.
- Selected "Accept", then selected "Change Subscribers". Both co-existed happily.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17132
Summary:
Ref T11114. This restores:
- Commandeering should exeucte Herald.
- Commandeering should swap reviewers.
- "Request Review" on an "Accepted" revision should downgrade reviewers so they have to accept again.
Test Plan:
- Commandeered, saw Herald run and reviewers swap.
- Requested review of an accepted revision, saw it drop down to "Needs Review" with "Accepted Prior" on the reviewer.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17118
Summary: Ref T11114. This restores warnings (e.g., failing unit tests) and fixes "Quote" behavior for comments.
Test Plan:
- Quoted a comment.
- Viewed a warning.
{F2283275}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17117
Summary: Ref T11114. This comments nearly working on EditEngine. Only significant issue I caught is that the "View" link doesn't render properly because it depends on JS which is tricky to hook up. I'll clean that up in a future diff.
Test Plan: {F2279201}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17116
Summary:
Ref T11114. Differential has more actions than it once did, and may have further actions in the future.
Make this dropdown a little easier to parse by grouping similar types of actions, like "Accept" and "Reject".
(The action order still needs to be tweaked a bit.)
Test Plan: {F2274526}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: eadler
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17114
Summary: Ref T11114. This begins restoring comment actions to Differential, but on top of EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F2263148}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17107
Summary:
Fixes T12049. This expands "Haunted" comment panels to EditEngine, and by extension to all EditEngine applications.
Eventual goal is to remove custom commenting code in Differential and replace it with EditEngine code.
Changes from current "haunt" mode:
- This only has one mode ("pinned"), not two ("pinned", "pinned with preview"). There's an inline preview and scroll behavior is a little better.
- Now has a UI action button.
Slightly tricky stuff:
- This interacts with "Fullscreen" mode since it doesn't make sense to pin a full-screen comment area.
- This should only be available for comments, not for remarkup fields like "Description" in "Edit Task".
Test Plan:
- Pinned/unpinned in Maniphest.
- Pinned/fullscreened/unfullscreened/unpinned.
- Checked that "Edit Task" doesn't allow pinning for "Description", etc.
- Pressed "?", read about pressing "Z".
- Pressed "Z".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17105
Summary: Ref T11114. Keep rendering and mail, toss the rest.
Test Plan: Edited and viewed reviewers.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17086
