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 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 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:
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.
When we query for revisions with particular reviewers, use the new table to drive the query.
When we load revisions for use in the application, also use the new table to drive the query.
This doesn't convert everything: there's some old `loadRelationships()` stuff still using the old table. But this moves the major stuff over.
(This also changes the icon for "commented" from a question mark to a speech bubble.)
Test Plan:
- Viewed revision lists and detail views on old and new code, saw identical outcomes.
- Updated revisions, accepted/rejected/commented on revisions.
- Hit the "Accepted Older" and "Commented Older" states by taking an action and then updating.
- Grepped for removed methods (like `getEdgeData()` and `getDiffID()`).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17517
Summary:
Ref T10967. We have a "commented" state to help reviewers get a better sense of who is part of a discussion, and a "last action" state to help distinguish between "accept" and "accepted an older version", for the purposes of sticky accepts and as a UI hint.
Currently, these are first-class states, partly beacuse we were somewhat limited in what we could do with edges. However, a more flexible way to represent them is as flags separate from the primary state flag.
In the new storage, write them as separate state information: `lastActionDiffPHID` stores the Diff PHID of the last review action (accept, reject, etc). `lastCommentDiffPHID` stores the Diff PHID of the last comment (top-level or inline).
Test Plan: Applied storage changes, commented and acted on a revision. Saw appropriate state reflected in the database.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17514
Summary:
Ref T10967. This is an incremental step toward removing "reviewers" back to a dedicated storage table so we can handle changes like T11050.
This adds the storage table, and starts doing double writes to it (so new or updated reviewers write to both the old edge table and the new "reviewers" table).
Then we can do a migration, swap readers over one at a time, and eventually remove the old write and old storage and then implement new features.
This change has no user-facing impact, it just causes us to write new data to two places instead of one.
This is not completely exhaustive: the Herald "Add Reviewers" action is still doing a manual EDGE transaction. I'll clean that up next and do another pass to look for anything else I missed.
This is also a bit copy/pastey for now but the logic around "RESIGN" is a little different in the two cases until T11050. I'll unify it in future changes.
Test Plan:
- Did a no-op edit.
- Did a no-op comment.
- Added reviewers.
- Removed reviewers.
- Accepted and rejected revisions.
After all of these edits, did a `SELECT * FROM differential_reviewer` manually and saw consistent-looking rows in the database.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17495
Summary: Ref T10967. This makes room for a `DifferentialReviewer` object which can be a real storage table.
Test Plan: Grepped for `DifferentialReviewer`, browsed Differential.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17041
Summary: All classes should extend from some other class. See D13275 for some explanation.
Test Plan: `arc unit`
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13283
Summary: Ref T5655. Rename `PhabricatorPHIDType` subclasses for clarity (see discussion in D9839). I'm not too keen on some of the resulting class names, so feel free to suggest alternatives.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9986
Summary: Ran `arc lint --apply-patches --everything` over rP, mainly to change double quotes to single quotes where appropriate. These changes also validate that the `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_DOUBLE_QUOTE` rule is working as expected.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9431
Summary:
Ref T1279. We currently determine reviewers at display time, but this is bad for several reasons:
- It puts queries very close to the display layer.
- We have to query for each revision if we want to figure out authority for several.
- We need to figure it out in several places, so we'll end up with copies of this logic.
- The logic isn't trivial (exceptions for the viewer, exceptions to that rule for install configuration).
- We already do this "figure it out when we need it" stuff in Diffusion for audits and it's really bad: we have half-working copies of the logic spread all over the place.
Instead, put it in the Query. Callers query for it and get the data attached to the reviewer objects.
Test Plan:
- Looked at some revisions, verified the correct lines were highlighted.
- Looked at a revision I created and verified that projects I was a member of were not highlighted.
- With self-accept enabled, these //are// highlighted.
- Looked at a revision I did not create and verified that projects I was a member of were highlighted.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7241
Summary: Ref T1279. Show separate sections for "Reviewers" and "Project Reviewers" (Differential) and for "Auditors" and "Package/Project Auditors" (Diffusion/Audit).
Test Plan:
- Looked at a commit. Saw separation.
- Looked at a revision. Saw separation.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7233
Summary:
Ref T1279. No logical changes, just updates the reviewer display style.
We currently keep track of only "requested changes".
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7228
Summary: Add `getReviewerStatus` to get an array of `DifferentialReviewer` objects. The method `needReviewerStatus` in `DifferentialRevisionQuery` loads the edges into the revisions loaded.
Test Plan: Added `->needReviewerStatus(true)` to `DifferentialRevisionSearchEngine` and checked through logging that the data was being loaded correctly.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6450
