Summary: Ref T1703. Put a more reasonable UI than "blob of JSON" on top of this.
Test Plan:
Reordered, enabled and disabled user profile fields.
{F49317}
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6393
Summary:
Ref T1703. This sets the stage for (but does not yet implement) custom UI types for config. In particular, a draggable list for custom fields.
I might make all the builtin types go through this at some point too, but don't really want to bother for the moment. It would be very slightly cleaner but woudn't get us much of anything.
Test Plan:
UI now renders via custom code, although that code does nothing (produces an unadorned text field):
{F45693}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6154
Summary:
Adds a profile edit controller (with just one field and on links to it) that uses ApplicationTransactions and CustomField.
{F45617}
My plan is to move the other profile fields to this interface and get rid of Settings -> Profile. Basically, these will be "settings":
- Sex
- Language
- Timezone
These will be "profile":
- Real Name
- Title
- Blurb
- Profile Image (but I'm going to put this on a separate UI)
- Other custom fields
Test Plan: Edited my realname using the new interface.
Reviewers: chad, seporaitis
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6152
Summary:
None of this code is reachable yet. See discussion in D6147. Ref T1703.
Provide tighter integration between ApplicationTransactions and CustomField. Basically, I'm just trying to get all the shared stuff into the base implementation.
Test Plan: Code not reachable.
Reviewers: chad, seporaitis
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6149
Summary:
Ref T1703. We have currently have two custom field implementations (Maniphest, Differential) and are about to add a third (User, see D6122). I'd like to generalize custom fields before doing a third implementation, so we don't back ourselves into the ApplicationTransactions corner we have with Maniphest/Differential/Audit.
For the most part, the existing custom fields work well and can be directly generalized. There are three specific things I want to improve, though:
- Integration with ApplicationSearch: Custom fields aren't indexable. ApplicationSearch is now online and seems stable and good. D5278 provides a template for a backend which can integrate with ApplicationSearch, and ApplicationSearch solves many of the other UI problems implied by exposing custom fields into search (principally, giant pages full of query fields). Generally, I want to provide stronger builtin integration between custom fields and ApplicationSearch.
- Integration with ApplicationTransactions: Likewise, custom fields should support more native integrations with ApplicationTransactions, which are also online and seem stable and well designed.
- Selection and sorting: Selecting and sorting custom fields is a huge mess right now. I want to move this into config now that we have the UI to support it, and move away from requiring users to subclass a ton of stuff just to add a field.
For ApplicationSearch, I've adopted and generalized D5278.
For ApplicationTransactions, I haven't made any specific affordances yet.
For selection and sorting, I've partially implemented config-based selection and sorting. It will work like this:
- We add a new configuration value, like `differential.fields`. In the UI, this is a draggable list of supported fields. Fields can be reordered, and most fields can be disabled.
- We load every avialable field to populate this list. New fields will appear at the bottom.
- There are two downsides to this approach:
- If we add fields in the upstream at a later date, they will appear at the end of the list if an install has customized list order or disabled fields, even if we insert them elsewhere in the upstream.
- If we reorder fields in the upstream, the reordering will not be reflected in install which have customized the order/availability.
- I think these are both acceptable costs. We only incur them if an admin edits this config, which implies they'll know how to fix it if they want to.
- We can fix both of these problems with a straightforward configuration migration if we want to bother.
- There are numerous upsides to this approach:
- We can delete a bunch of code and replace it with simple configuration.
- In general, we don't need the "selector" classes anymore.
- Users can enable available-but-disabled fields with one click.
- Users can add fields by putting their implementations in `src/extensions/` with zero subclassing or libphutil stuff.
- Generally, it's super easy for users to understand.
This doesn't actually do anything yet and will probably see some adjustments before anything starts running it.
Test Plan: Static checks only, this code isn't reachable yet.
Reviewers: chad, seporaitis
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1703
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6147
