Summary: This seems to work, but I couldn't figure out how to pass over a Caption for a text field.
Test Plan: New blog, Edit blog.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14770
Summary:
Ref T9992. This is a step on the path to getting EditEngine working in Badges, Projects and Calendar.
This doesn't add a new `EditField` for icons yet, just standardizes the old stuff. New stuff is more general and I saved 150 lines of code.
I put the endpoint in Files because the similar "choose a profile picture" endpoint will definitely go there, and this endpoint might eventually feature, like, "draw your own icon~~" or something.
Test Plan:
- Created events, projects and badges with custom icons.
- Edited events, projects and badges, changing their icons.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9992
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14799
Summary:
Ref T9964. Three goals here:
- Make it easier to supply Conduit documentation.
- Make automatic documentation for `*.edit` endpoints more complete, particularly for custom fields.
- Allow type resolution via Conduit types, so you can pass `["alincoln"]` to "subscribers" instead of needing to use PHIDs.
Test Plan:
- Viewed and used all search and edit endpoints, including custom fields.
- Used parameter type resolution to set subscribers to user "dog" instead of "PHID-USER-whatever".
- Viewed HTTP parameter documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14796
Summary: Ref T9964. Fixes T9752. Provides API access to enable/disable packages and change their paths.
Test Plan:
- Changed status via Conduit.
- Changed paths via Conduit.
- Tried to change a path use a nonsense/bogus repository PHID, got an error.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9752, T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14790
Summary:
Ref T9908. Fixes T6205.
This is largely some refactoring to improve the code. The new structure is:
- Each EditField has zero or one "submit" (normal edit form) controls.
- Each EditField has zero or one "comment" (stacked actions) controls.
- If we want more than one in the future, we'd just add two fields.
- Each EditField can have multiple EditTypes which provide Conduit transactions.
- EditTypes are now lower-level and less involved on the Submit/Comment pathways.
Test Plan:
- Added and removed projects and subscribers.
- Changed task statuses.
- In two windows: added some subscribers in one, removed different ones in the other. The changes did not conflict.
- Applied changes via Conduit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6205, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14789
Summary:
Ref T9980. No magic here, just write a little bit about how to find outdated callers. Update the technical doc.
Also:
- Fix an unrelated bug where you couldn't leave comments if an object had missing, required, custom fields.
- Restore the ConduitConnectionLog table so `bin/storage adjust` doesn't complain.
Test Plan: Read docs.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9980
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14784
Summary:
Ref T5955, T9980, T9982.
We currently store two types of Conduit logs: //connection// logs and //method// logs.
Originally, Conduit worked like web logins: you'd call `conduit.connect` and then get a session back. This approach still works, but new clients don't use it and it will probably stop working eventually after T5955 is further along.
There was no real reason for things to work like this and no other API in the world does, I think it was just slightly easier to implement back in 2011.
This table was used to group up related calls in a UI long ago, I think, but that got deleted at some point. In any case, it serves no purpose in modern Phabricator.
Test Plan: `grep`
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5955, T9980, T9982
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14780
Summary:
Ref T9980. Start making this UI more useful and powerful so we can give administrators a better toolset for reacting to API changes.
Fixes T9755. We were logging the caller, just not rendering it properly.
Test Plan: {F1025799}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9755, T9980
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14779
Summary: Ref T9980. I don't think this is actually useful, and plan to give users and administrators more powerful tools instead.
Test Plan: Loaded setup warnings.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9980
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14778
Summary: Ref T9964. This just adds more structure to application fields, to make it harder to make typos and easier to validate them later.
Test Plan: Viewed APIs, called some APIs, saw good documentation and correct results.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14776
Summary:
Ref T9964.
- Add a "paths" attachment for fetching paths.
- Always load owners. We will need this to do policy checks in the future, anyway, and this data is not large, is very useful, and is reasonable to load unconditionally.
Test Plan:
- Queried packages via API.
- Edited packages (paths, owners).
- Created a package.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14775
Summary: Ref T9964. Builds on D14772. Allows callers to get the raw content of pastes as an attachment.
Test Plan:
- Read docs.
- Executed attachment query.
- Saw raw paste content.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14774
Summary: Ref T9964. Builds on D14772. Allows callers to request project PHIDs for objects.
Test Plan: {F1025468}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14773
Summary:
Ref T9964. We have various kinds of secondary data on objects (like subscribers, projects, paste content, Owners paths, file attachments, etc) which is somewhat slow, or somewhat large, or both.
Some approaches to handling this in the API include:
- Always return all of it (very easy, but slow).
- Require users to make separate API calls to get each piece of data (very simple, but inefficient and really cumbersome to use).
- Implement a hierarchical query language like GraphQL (powerful, but very complex).
- Kind of mix-and-match a half-power query language and some extra calls? (fairly simple, not too terrible?)
We currently mix-and-match internally, with `->needStuff(true)`. This is not a general-purpose, full-power graph query language like GraphQL, and it occasionally does limit us.
For example, there is no way to do this sort of thing:
$conpherence_thread_query = id(new ConpherenceThreadQuery())
->setViewer($viewer)
// ...
->setNeedMessages(true)
->setWhenYouLoadTheMessagesTheyNeedProfilePictures(true);
However, we almost never actually need to do this and when we do want to do it we usually don't //really// want to do it, so I don't think this is a major limit to the practical power of the system for the kinds of things we really want to do with it.
Put another way, we have a lot of 1-level hierarchical queries (get pictures or repositories or projects or files or content for these objects) but few-to-no 2+ level queries (get files for these objects, then get all the projects for those files).
So even though 1-level hierarchies are not a beautiful, general-purpose, fully-abstract system, they've worked well so far in practice and I'm comfortable moving forward with them in the API.
If we do need N-level queries in the future, there is no technical reason we can't put GraphQL (or something similar) on top of this eventually, and this would represent a solid step toward that. However, I suspect we'll never need them.
Upshot: I'm pretty happy with "->needX()" for all practical purposes, so this is just adding a way to say "->needX()" to the API.
Specifically, you say:
```
{
"attachments": {
"subscribers": true,
}
}
```
...and get back subscriber data. In the future (or for certain attachments), `true` might become a dictionary of extra parameters, if necessary, and could do so without breaking the API.
Test Plan:
- Ran queries to get attachments.
{F1025449}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14772
Summary:
Ref T9964. I added several hacks to get these working. Clean them up and pull this into a proper extension.
The behavior in the web UI is:
- they work in all applications; but
- they only show up in the UI if a value is specified.
So if you visit `/view/?ids=1,2` you get the field, but normally it's not present. We could refine this later. I'm going to add documentation about how to prefill these forms regardless, which should make this discoverable by reading the documentation.
There's one teensey weensey hack: in the API, I push these fields to the top of the table. That one feels OK, since it's purely a convenience/display adjustment.
Test Plan: Queried by IDs, reviewed docs.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14769
Summary: Ref T9964. I left a couple of these unsupported for now since they're weird in some way.
Test Plan: {F1024031}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14767
Summary:
Ref T9964. Fill in more parameter types and descriptions.
(No date support yet since it's a bit more involved.)
Test Plan: {F1024022}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14766
Summary: Ref T9964. This fills in types and descriptions for ApplicationSearch fields in Paste.
Test Plan:
Got this nice table now:
{F1023999}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14765
Summary:
Ref T9964. ApplicationSearch currently has a bunch of hard-coded `if ($object instanceof thing)` stuff.
Pull that out so it can live in extensions.
Test Plan:
- Searched by spaces, subscribers, projects.
{F1023921}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14764
Summary:
Ref T9964. I want to show users what we're expecting in "constraints", and let constraints like "authors=epriestley" work to make things easier.
I'm generally very happy with the "HTTPParameterType" stuff from EditEngine, so add a parallel set of "ConduitParameterType" classes. These are a little simpler than the HTTP ones, but have a little more validation logic.
Test Plan:
This is really just a proof of concept; some of these fields are now filled in:
{F1023845}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14763
Summary: Ref T9964. This is a basic implementation of the new "maniphest.search" endpoint.
Test Plan: Clicked the button in the web UI, got meaningful results back.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14760
Summary:
Ref T9964. Adds a new-style "owners.search" endpoint, and an extension for customfields.
Puts enough indirection in place to give us nice, consistent "custom.key" user-facing keys instead of "std:custom:owners:na0shf9a8dfdsafl" junk.
Test Plan:
- Searched Owners via API.
- Searched by ID.
- Ordered by custom fields.
- Reviewed API docs.
- Used normal search with ordering.
- Viewed custom field values in search results.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14758
Summary: Adds a list of your drafts. Fixes T9927y
Test Plan:
Load up home, see my drafts. Fake 0 drafts, see fallback message.
{F1023139}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14756
Summary: Ref T9927. Adds a "Blogs" section to PhameHome. Removes "New Post" Controller. Adds flipped layout for PHUITwoColumnView
Test Plan:
Test PhameHome, Ponder, New Post, etc. Mobile and Desktop states.
{F1022080}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: johnny-bit, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9927
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14744
Summary:
Ref T9964. See that task for some context and discussion.
Ref T7715, which has the bigger picture here.
Basically, I want Conduit read endpoints to be full-power, ApplicationSearch-driven endpoints, so that applications can:
- Write one EditEngine and get web + conduit writes for free.
- Write one SearchEngine and get web + conduit reads for free.
I previously made some steps toward this, but this puts more of the structure in place.
Test Plan:
Viewed API console endpoint and read 20 pages of docs:
{F1021961}
Made various calls: with query keys, constraints, pagination, and limits.
Viewed new {nav Config > Modules} page.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7715, T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14743
Summary:
Ref T9897. Purge a bunch of stuff:
- Remove skins.
- Remove all custom sites for skin resources.
- Remove "framed", "notlive", "preview", separate "live" controllers (see below).
- Merge "publish" and "unpublish" controllers into one.
New behavior:
- Blogs and posts have three views:
- "View": Internal view URI, which is a normal detail page.
- "Internal Live": Internal view URI which is a little prettier.
- "External Live": External view URI for an external domain.
Right now, the differences are pretty minor (basically, different crumbs/chrome). This mostly gives us room to put some milder flavor of skins back later (photography or more "presentation" elements, for example).
This removes 9 million lines of code so I probably missed a couple of things, but I think it's like 95% of the way there.
Test Plan:
Here are some examples of what the "view", "internal" and "external" views look like for blogs (posts are similar):
"View": Unchanged
{F1021634}
"Internal": No chrome or footer. Still write actions (edit, post commments). Has crumbs to get back into Phame.
{F1021635}
"External": No chrome or footer. No write actions. No Phabricator crumbs. No policy/status information.
{F1021638}
I figure we'll probably tweak these a bit to figure out what makes sense (like: maybe no actions on "internal, live"? and "external, live" probably needs a way to set a root "Company >" crumb?) but that they're reasonable-ish as a first cut?
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9897
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14740
Summary: Ref T9952. This will let me put a "Branch: [____]" control on the "Land Revision" dialog so users can choose a branch to target.
Test Plan: Used `/typeahead/class/` to vet basic behavior.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9952
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14732
Summary: Ref T9952. See discussion there. This change is primarily aimed at letting me build a typeahead of branches in a repository so that we can land to arbitrary branches a few diffs from now.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Verified database populated properly with PHIDs (`SELECT * FROM repository_refcursor;`).
- Ran `bin/repository update`.
- Viewed a Git repository in Diffusion.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9952
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14731
Summary:
Fixes T9945. This is straightforward.
The two sub-object types are very lightweight so I just deleted them directly instead of loading + delete()'ing (or implementing DestructibleInterface on them, which would require they have PHIDs).
Also improve a US English localization.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/remove destroy PHID-... --trace` to destroy a package.
- Verified it was gone.
- Inspected the SQL in the log for general reasonableness.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9945
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14729
Summary: Allows closing a mock from the action list. Ref T9414
Test Plan: New Mock, Edit Mock, Close Mock, Open Mock
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9414
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14726
Summary: Makes this more consistent. Also clean up spacing. Ref T9414
Test Plan: Archive/Activate Paste, Edit Paste
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9414
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14724
Summary: Ref T9908. Move all the "pro" stuff into the old locations.
Test Plan: Created/edited tasks, looked at URIs, saw non-pro ones. Grepped for `editpro`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14717
Summary:
Ref T9908. No more callsites. Also:
- Phurl a couple of documentation URIs.
- Get rid of "task:" in the global search since it doesn't really make sense anymore.
Test Plan: `grep`, edited/created tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14716
Summary: Ref T9908. This fixes "Create Subtask" so it works with the new stuff. Mostly straightforward.
Test Plan: Created some subtasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14706
Summary:
Ref T9908. This removes the "Create Another Empty Task", "Create A Similar Task" and "Create Another Subtask of Same Parent Task" workflow callouts on the task detail page, which are actions that show up after creating a task or creating a subtask.
- I think "Create Empty" isn't relevant now that we have "Create Task" nearby and the quick create menu?
- I'm not sure if "Create Similar" is worth keeping. If we do want to retain it, I'd maybe like to find a way to do it generically.
- I'm likewise not sure if "Create another subtask" is worth keeping.
Overall, these actions are weird/unusual and I'm not sure how valuable they are. I'm open to keeping "Similar" and/or "Subtask" but I'd like to verify that they're still valuable and make sure we have a reasonable design for them if we retain them.
For example, if we want to retain "Similar", maybe a better approach is just to add "Create Similar Object" to every action menu (which is now possible for EditEngine applications)? There's at least some interest in "Create Similar Repository" in Diffusion.
Also removes a very very old piece of "attached files" code.
Test Plan: Created and viewed some tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14705
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. Puts reordering UI in place:
- For create forms, this just lets you pick a UI display order other than alphabetical. Seems nice to have.
- For edit forms, this lets you create a hierarchy of advanced-to-basic forms and give them different visibility policies, if you want.
Test Plan:
{F1017842}
- Verified that "Edit Thing" now takes me to the highest-ranked edit form.
- Verified that create menu and quick create menu reflect application order.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14704
Summary:
Ref T9132. Ref T9908. This attempts to move us forward on answering this question:
> Which form gets used when a user clicks "Edit Task"?
One answer is "the same form that was used to create the task". There are several problems with that:
- The form might not exist anymore.
- The user might not have permission to see it.
- Some of the fields might be hidden, essentially preventing them from being edited.
- We have to store the value somewhere and old tasks won't have a value.
- Any instructions on the form probably don't apply to edits.
One answer is "force the default, full form". That's not as problematic, but it means we have no ability to create limited access users who see fewer fields.
The answer in this diff is:
- Forms can be marked as "edit forms".
- We take the user to the first edit form they have permission to see, from a master list.
This allows you to create several forms like:
- Advanced Edit Form (say, all fields -- visible to administrators).
- Basic Edit Form (say, no policies -- visible to trusted users).
- Noob Edit Form (say, no policies, priorities, or status -- visible to everyone).
Then you can give everyone access to "noob", some people access to "basic", and a few people access to "advanced".
This might only be part of the answer. In particular, you can still //use// any edit form you can see, so we could do these things in the future:
- Give you an option to switch to a different form if you want.
- Save the form the task was created with, and use that form by default.
If we do pursue those, we can fall back to this behavior if there's a problem with them (e.g., original form doesn't exist or wasn't recorded).
There's also no "reorder" UI yet, that'll be coming in the next diff.
I'm also going to try to probably make the "create" and "edit" stuff a little more consistent / less weird in a bit.
Test Plan: Marked various forms as edit forms or not edit forms, made edits, hit permissions errors, etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132, T9908
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14702
Summary: Moves New Post and Move Post to be separate Controllers with Dialogs. Ref T9897
Test Plan: Move a post to a new blog, see message and see post. Click New Post, get dialog, pick blog, edit new post.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9897
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14698
Summary: Fixes T6132. We currently allow invalid configuration here; validate it.
Test Plan: Tried to save invalid config (negative priorities, string priorities, etc).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14689
Summary: Fixes T5788. We already have this as a pre-commit field, add it as a post-commit field too.
Test Plan: Ran this rule on a merge commit. Also ran it on a non-merge commit. Both got the correct value.
Reviewers: avivey, chad
Reviewed By: avivey, chad
Subscribers: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T5788
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14685
Summary:
Ref T7848. This is a companion to "Change status to: ...".
(I'm pretty sure the only reason I didn't originally write these was the tokenizer bug in D14682, I just forgot about it).
This is basically a copy/paste of the "status" action.
Test Plan:
- Wrote a rule to change task priorities.
- Edited a task.
- Saw rule fire properly.
- Tokens also stick around correctly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7848
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14683
Summary:
Ref T7848. This patch is incomplete and has the following issues:
- Multiple statuses can be entered on the edit rule page (only the first one is used).
- Statuses are not rendered correctly when re-editing a rule.
Test Plan: Applied to our local phab instance and verified it works with our task workflow.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: joshuaspence, revi, epriestley, jsmith
Maniphest Tasks: T7848
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14359
Summary:
Ref T9132. This is kind of a mess because the tokenizer rewrite left rendering tokenizers in Javascript a little rough. This causes bugs like icons not showing up on tokens in the "Policy" dialog, which there's a task for somewhere I think.
I think I've fixed it enough that the beahavior is now correct (i.e., icons show up properly), but some of the code is a bit iffy. I'll eventually clean this up properly, but it's fairly well contained for now.
Test Plan:
- Reassigned a task.
- Put a task up for grabs.
- No reassign on closed tasks.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14669
Summary:
Ref T9132. Like D14659, I'll hold this until after the cut.
This swaps commenting in Maniphest over to EditEngine / stackable actions. New code doesn't have parity yet, although none of the things we're missing should technically be //strictly mandatory//. There's a list inline. I'll restore these in the next diffs.
Briefly -- comments, subscribers and projects work. Status, owners and priority do not yet.
Test Plan:
- Made comments and added subscribers and projects.
- Read through the old code to look for missing features and tried to document them all.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14663
Summary:
Ref T9132. I'm going hold this until after the release cut since it isn't going to land completely smoothly, but I think I can prep it today/tomorrow and hopefully get it close enough to working to put in HEAD on Saturday after the push.
This adds the basics: new EditEngine, new EditController, and new `maniphest.edit` API endpoint.
I put the new stuff at `editpro/` for now until it works a little better.
Some notes on stuff this is dropping/changing/not-working-yet:
- Preview for the description. I'd rather solve this by putting a "Preview" button on every Remarkup area if we want to retain it. Particularly, it does not generalize to adding custom remarkup fields in its current form. See also T3967.
- Per-field policies are no longer enforced. They were never truly enforced anyway (for example, any user who can edit a task has always been able to edit every field via Conduit or email actions or Herald, where Herald supports things), and only really served as a hint to users. I think we can obsolete this by having installs hide/lock these fields instead. This is a desirable outcome for me, since I don't like retaining these policies and the idea of truly enforcing them properly is worrisome. These were originally added for Uber as an onboarding sort of thing. I'll prepare users for this in greater detail in the documentation.
- Couple of minor bugs with ordering / defaults / only-one-owner-allowed in this diff that I'll clean up in future diffs before this stuff lands.
- I don't have a concrete plan on "Create Similar Task" / "Clone" yet (do you have thoughts? Is this worth trying to do in every application?). I'll probably just mostly mimic the current behavior.
Test Plan: I'll vet this more thoroughly in followups, just banged around some tasks for now and created/edited via the API.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14659
