Summary:
Fixes T12642. Currently, writing "Fixes T..." in a comment gets picked up as a formal "fixes".
This is a bit confusing, and can also give you a "no effect" error if you "fixes ..." a task which is already "fixes"'d.
We could make the duplicate action a non-error, but just prevent the text from having an effect instead, which seems cleaner.
Test Plan:
- Wrote "Fixes ..." in a summary, saw a "fixes" relationship established.
- Wrote "Fixes ..." in a comment, got a "mention" instead.
- `var_dump()`'d some stuff as a sanity check, looked reasonable.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12642
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17805
Summary: Makes it more clear whose authority actions have been taken under.
Test Plan: {F4916376}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17741
Summary:
Previously, "reject" and "reject older" were separate statuses. Now, they're both shades of "reject".
Set the "older reject" flag properly when we find a non-current reject.
Test Plan:
- User A accepts a revision.
- User B rejects it.
- Author updates it.
- Before patch: incorrectly transitions to "accepted" ("older" reject is ignored).
- After patch: correctly transitions to "needs review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17653
Summary:
Ref T12509. Many of the calls to HMAC+SHA1 are just to compute cachekeys for remarkup objects.
Make these use HMAC+SHA256 instead. There is no downside to swapping these since they just cause a cache miss in the worst case.
I also plan to get rid of `PhabricatorMarkupInterface` eventually, but this doesn't go that far.
Test Plan: Browsed some different types of documents (tasks, legalpad documents, phame blogs / posts, pholio mocks, etc).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17631
Summary:
Ref T12272. I wrote this correctly, then broke it by adding the simplification which treats "accept the defaults" as "accept everything".
This simplification lets us render "epriestley accepted this revision." instead of "epriestley accepted this revision onbehalf of: long, list, of, every, default, reviewer, they, have, authority, over." so it's a good thing, but make it only affect the reviewers it's supposed to affect.
Test Plan:
- Did an accept with a force-accept available but unchecked.
- Before patch: incorrectly accepted all possible reviewers.
- After patch: accepted only checked reviewers.
- Also checked the force-accept box, accepted, got a proper force-accept.
Reviewers: chad, lvital
Reviewed By: lvital
Maniphest Tasks: T12272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17634
Summary: Allow API callers to retrieve reviewer information via a new "reviewers" attachment.
Test Plan: {F4675784}
Reviewers: chad, lvital
Reviewed By: lvital
Subscribers: lvital
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17633
The root issue here is actually just that I cherry-picked stable locally
but did not push it. However, this is a minor issue I also caught while
double-checking things.
Auditors: chad
Summary:
Ref T12464. This is a very old method which can return an existing file instead of creating a new one, if there's some existing file with the same content.
In the best case this is a bad idea. This being somewhat reasonable predates policies, temporary files, etc. Modern methods like `newFromFileData()` do this right: they share underlying data in storage, but not the actual `File` records.
Specifically, this is the case where we get into trouble:
- I upload a private file with content "X".
- You somehow generate a file with the same content by, say, viewing a raw diff in Differential.
- If the diff had the same content, you get my file, but you don't have permission to see it or whatever so everything breaks and is terrible.
Just get rid of this.
Test Plan:
- Generated an SSH key.
- Viewed a raw diff in Differential.
- (Did not test Phragment.)
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T12464
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17617
Summary:
Ref T11357. When creating a file, callers can currently specify a `ttl`. However, it isn't unambiguous what you're supposed to pass, and some callers get it wrong.
For example, to mean "this file expires in 60 minutes", you might pass either of these:
- `time() + phutil_units('60 minutes in seconds')`
- `phutil_units('60 minutes in seconds')`
The former means "60 minutes from now". The latter means "1 AM, January 1, 1970". In practice, because the GC normally runs only once every four hours (at least, until recently), and all the bad TTLs are cases where files are normally accessed immediately, these 1970 TTLs didn't cause any real problems.
Split `ttl` into `ttl.relative` and `ttl.absolute`, and make sure the values are sane. Then correct all callers, and simplify out the `time()` calls where possible to make switching to `PhabricatorTime` easier.
Test Plan:
- Generated an SSH keypair.
- Viewed a changeset.
- Viewed a raw diff.
- Viewed a commit's file data.
- Viewed a temporary file's details, saw expiration date and relative time.
- Ran unit tests.
- (Didn't really test Phragment.)
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T11357
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17616
Summary:
Fixes T12496. Sticky accept was accidentally impacted by the "void" changes in D17566.
Instead, don't always downgrade all accepts/rejects: on update, we only want to downgrade accepts.
Test Plan:
- With sticky accept off, updated an accepted revision: new state is "needs review".
- With sticky accept on, updated an accepted revision: new state is "accepted" (sticky accept working correctly).
- Did "reject" + "request review" to make sure that still works, worked fine.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12496
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17605
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 moves all remaining "request review" pathways (just `differential.createcomment`) to the new code, and removes the old action.
Test Plan: Requested review on a revision, `grep`'d for the action constant.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17567
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 T11050. The old rule was "you can only resign if you're a reviewer".
With the new behavior of "resign", the rule should be "you can resign if you're a reviewer, or you have authority over any reviewer". Make it so.
Also fixes T12446. I don't know how to reproduce that but I'm pretty sure this'll fix it?
Test Plan:
- Could not resign from a revision with no authority/reviewer.
- Resigned from a revision with myself as a reviewer.
- Resigned from a revision with a package I owned as a reviewer.
- Could not resign from a revision I had already resigned from.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12446, T11050
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17558
Summary: Ref T9363, If we're in a dashboard panel, only show buckets with data, or a fallback if nothing exists.
Test Plan: Test 'active revisions' panel in a dashboard and in Differential.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T9363
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17544
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: Hit this while `arc diff`'ing something which is triggering 2+ rules which add reviewers, I think.
Test Plan: Dug this out of a production stack trace; will push and `arc diff` again.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17534
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. The old name was because we had a `getReviewers()` tied to `needRelationships()`, rename this method to use a simpler and more clear name.
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17519
Summary:
Ref T10967. There have been two different ways to load reviewers for a while: `needReviewerStatus()` and `needRelationships()`.
The `needRelationships()` stuff was a false start along time ago that didn't really go anywhere. I believe the idea was that we might want to load several different types of edges (subscribers, reviewers, etc) on lots of different types of objects. However, all that stuff pretty much ended up modularizing so that main `Query` classes did not need to know about it, so `needRelationships()` never got generalized or went anywhere.
A handful of things still use it, but get rid of them: they should either `needReviewerStatus()` to get reviewer info, or the ~3 callsites that care about subscribers can just load them directly.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for removed methods (`needRelationships()`, `getReviewers()`, `getCCPHIDs()`, etc).
- Browsed Diffusion, Differential.
- Called `differential.query`.
It's possible I missed some stuff, but it should mostly show up as super obvious fatals ("call needReviewerStatus() before getReviewerStatus()!").
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17518
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. `differential.createcomment` is a frozen API method which has been obsoleted by `differential.revision.edit`.
It is the only remaining way to apply an "accept", "reject", or "resign" action using the old "ACTION" code.
Instead of using the old code, sneakly apply a new type of transaction in these cases instead.
Then, remove all the remaining old code for this stuff on the write pathways.
Test Plan:
- Used "differential.createcomment" to accept, reject, and resign from a revision.
- Grepped for all removed ACTION_X constants, found them only in rendering code.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17513
Summary: Ref T10967. See that task for some discussion. This lets us do double writes on this pathway.
Test Plan: Set an Owners package to auto-review. Created revisions which triggered it: one with no reviewers (autoreview added); one with the package as a blocking reviewer explicitly (no automatic stuff happened, as expected).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17512
Summary:
Ref T10967. This converts the reviewer update action in Herald from an older edge write to a newer ModularTransactions write.
The major value from this is that we get a double-write to the new reviewers table.
Test Plan:
- Wrote a Herald rule to add a reviewer and a blocking reviewer.
- Saw them added properly to a revision with: no reviewers; both as blocking; A as blocking, B as nonblocking; A as nonblocking, B as blocking.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10967
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17511
Summary:
Ref T5378. This repackages an existing check to see if a URI is a URI for the current install into a more reasonable form.
In an upcoming change, I'll use this new check to test whether `http://example.whatever.com/T123` is a link to a task on the current install or not.
Test Plan: This stuff has good test coverage already; added some more.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5378
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17502
Summary:
Via HackerOne. When you view a raw file in Differential, we currently generate a permanent file with default permissions. This may be incorrect: default permissions may be broader than the diff's permissions.
The other three methods of downloading/viewing raw files ("Download" in Diffusion and Differential, "View Raw" in Diffusion and Differential) already apply policies correctly and generate temporary files. However, this workflow was missed when other workflows were updated.
Beyond updating the workflow, delete any files we've generated in the past. This wipes the slate clean on any security issues and frees up a little disk space.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration script, saw existing files get purged.
- Did "View Raw File", got a new file.
- Verified that the file was temporary and properly attached to the diff, with "NO ONE" permissions.
- Double-checked that Diffusion already runs policy logic correctly and applies appropriate policies.
- Double-checked that "Download Raw Diff" in Differential already runs policy logic correctly.
- Double-chekced that "Download Raw Diff" in Diffusion already runs policy logic correctly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17504
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 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:
Fixes T12322. Allows you to search for commits using the `tagged(...)` repository function, so you can find "any commmit in any repository tagged with android" or similar.
I moved the function from Differential (which was the application using it) to Diffusion (which is more accurately the application which provides it).
I fixed a bug where searching for `tagged(xyz)` would have no effect (constraint was ignored) if there were no repositories tagged with "xyz". The fix isn't perfectly clean, but should work properly for the moment.
Test Plan:
- Searched with `tagged(...)` in Diffusion and Differential.
- Searched by repository.
- Searched with `tagged(...)` for a project with no tagged repositories.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12322
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17426
Summary:
Ref T12319. Currently, `bin/lipsum` uses substring matches against human-readable text to chose which objects to generate.
Instead:
- Use separate selector keys which are guaranteed to be unique.
- When a match is exact, select only that generator.
- When a match is ambiguous, fail and warn the user.
Test Plan: Generated several types of objects, tried to generate ambiguous objects like "e".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12319
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17420
Summary: Ref T12319. The product name is misspelled in some methods, and a few places in the documentation.
Test Plan: `grep`
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12319
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17419
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 T12197. I //think// this field was never recognized by Differential (it doesn't appear in D17070, but maybe that isn't the right change).
It was recognized by the ad-hoc regular expression which I replaced with a formal parser in D17262.
Allow the former parser to accept "Auditor" as an alias for "Auditors".
Test Plan: Committed a change with `Auditor: dog`, saw the audit trigger correctly in the web UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17306
Summary:
Ref T12173.
- If we want to fetch a tag, Buildkite needs it as a "branch" (this means more like "ref to fetch").
- The API gets upset if we pass "refs/tags/...", so just pass the tag name without the prefix, which works.
- Do a better job with commits and pass a real branch to fetch.
Test Plan:
- Built a commit with Buildkite.
- Build a revision with Buildkite.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T12173
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17282
Summary:
Ref T10978. Updates how we implement "Auditors: ..." in commit messages:
- Use the same parsing code as everything else.
- (Also: parse package names.)
- Use the new transaction code.
Also, fix some UI strings.
Test Plan: Used `bin/repository reparse --herald <commit>` to re-run this code on commits with various messages (valid Auditors, invalid Auditors, no Auditors). Saw appropriate auditors added in the UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10978
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17262
Summary:
Ref T11114. Converting to EditEngine caused us to stop running this validation, since these fields no longer subclass this parent. Restore the validation.
Also, make sure we check the //first// line of the value, too. After the change to make "Tests: xyz" a valid title, you could write silly summaries / test plans and escape the check if the first line was bogus.
Test Plan: {F2493228}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17248
Summary: Ref T12136. This just yanks the band-aid off. Fundamentally these were useful well before Dashboards and advanced bucketing, but not so much any more. They also have some performance hit.
Test Plan: Add some tasks and diffs onto a new instance, see there is no count on the home menu bar.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12136
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17238
Summary:
To set this up:
- alice accepts a revision.
- Something adds a package or project she has authority over as a reviewer.
- Because alice has already accepted, she can not re-accept, but she should be able to (in order to accept on behalf of the new project or package).
Test Plan:
- Created a revision.
- Accepted as user "dog".
- Added "dog project".
- Re-accepted.
- Could not three-accept.
- Removed "dog project.
- Rejected.
- Added "dog project".
- Re-rejected.
- Could not three-reject.
Reviewers: chad, eadler
Reviewed By: chad, eadler
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17226
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
