Summary:
Ref T3025.
- Show current zone to make the current vs new more clear.
- Tweak some text.
Test Plan: {F1656534}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T3025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15965
Summary:
Fixes T10381. When we converted to `PHUIRemarkupView`, some instructional text got linebreaks added when it shouldn't have them (the source is written in PHP and wrapped at 80 characters, but the output should flow naturally).
Fix this so we don't preserve linebreaks.
This also makes `PHUIRemarkupView` a little more powerful and inches us toward fixing Phame/CORGI remarkup issues, getting rid of `PhabricatorMarkupInterface` / `PhabricatorMarkupOneOff`, and dropping all the application hard-coding in `PhabricatorMarkupEngine`.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for all callsites, looking for callsites which accept remarkup written in `<<<HEREDOC` format.
- Viewed form instructions, Conduit API methods, HTTP parameter edit instructions.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10381
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15963
Summary:
Ref T3025. Chrome gives us an easily-accessible, much better guess at which timezone the user is in.
Firefox also exposes "Intl" but this doesn't seem to be a reliable method to read the timezone.
Test Plan:
In Chrome, swapped my system date/time between zones, clicked the "reconcile" popup, got the dropdown prefilled accurately.
In Safari (no `Intl` API) got the normal flow with no default selected.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T3025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15962
Summary: Ref T10512. This is fairly bare-bones but appears to work.
Test Plan: Queried all users, queried some stuff by constraints.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10512
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15959
Summary: Ref T3025. This adds a check for different client/server timezone offsets and gives users an option to fix them or ignore them.
Test Plan:
- Fiddled with timezone in Settings and System Preferences.
- Got appropriate prompts and behavior after simulating various trips to and from exotic locales.
In particular, this slightly tricky case seems to work correctly:
- Travel to NY.
- Ignore discrepancy (you're only there for a couple hours for an important meeting, and returning to SF on a later flight).
- Return to SF for a few days.
- Travel back to NY.
- You should be prompted again, since you left the timezone after you ignored the discrepancy.
{F1654528}
{F1654529}
{F1654530}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T3025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15961
Summary: Bumping this up higher since two column views get extra tight fast below 900 px. This felt most correct to me, dialing it back from first attempt at 960. Mostly I don't want to ever accidentally trigger it when I'm on the 12" MacBook. Ref T10926
Test Plan: Durable Column, Workboards, Dashboards, Tasks.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: avivey, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10926
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15960
Summary:
Ref T5187. This definitely feels a bit flimsy and I'm going to hold it until I cut the release since it changes a couple of things about Workflow in general, but it seems to work OK and most of it is fine.
The intent is described in T5187#176236.
In practice, most of that works like I describe, then the `phui-file-upload` behavior gets some weird glue to figure out if the input is part of the form. Not the most elegant system, but I think it'll hold until we come up with many reasons to write a lot more Javascript.
Test Plan:
Used both drag-and-drop and the upload dialog to upload files in Safari, Firefox and Chrome.
{F1653716}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5187
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15953
Summary: Makes the background transparent for uploaded thumbs. This page in general needs lots of work, but here's the minimum. Fixes T10986
Test Plan: Edit a Mock with a transparent jeff.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10986
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15957
Summary: Couple of edge cases here I never cleaned up. This inlines points and projects better, with spacing and use of grey to better differentate from project tag colors.
Test Plan:
Review edge cases on workboard with multiple short and long project names.
{F1653998}
{F1653999}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15956
Summary: Converts to table so text wraps on long strings well, button always stays top right, better spacing underneath.
Test Plan: Mail, Gmail, mobile
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15955
Summary:
Ref T10939. This makes the `viewer()` function work again. It retains its own meaning (viewer, plus all their projects and packages).
There's no `exact-viewer()` function; we could conceivably add one eventually if we need it.
Test Plan:
- Queried for `viewer()`, got the same results as querying by my own username.
- Browsed function in token browser.
- Reviewed autogenerated documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15951
Summary:
Ref T10939. If you haven't installed a dashboard, we show an "Active Revisions" panel on the homepage by default. I waited a bit to update this, but the new buckets don't seem to have caused any major problems so far.
Update this to use the new logic. I'm just showing "must review" + "should review", which is similar to the old beahvior.
Also replace the notification count with this same number. This is a little different from the old behavior, but simpler, and I think we should probably move toward getting rid of these counts completely.
Test Plan:
- Viewed homepage as logged-in user, saw my revisions (including revisions I have authority over only because of project membership).
- Saw consistent notification count.
- Grepped for removed method.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15950
Summary: Ref T10917. This is getting added as a link right now, which causes it to get `<a href>`'d in HTML mail. Add it as text instead.
Test Plan: Edited a key, examined HTML mail body carefully.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10917
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15952
Summary:
Ref T10917. This cheats fairly heavily to generate SSH key mail:
- Generate normal transaction mail.
- Force it to go to the user.
- Use `setForceDelivery()` to force it to actually be delivered.
- Add some warning language to the mail body.
This doesn't move us much closer to Glorious Infrastructure for this whole class of events, but should do what it needs to for now and doesn't really require anything sketchy.
Test Plan: Created and edited SSH keys, got security notice mail.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10917
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15948
Summary:
Ref T10917. Converts web UI edits to transactions.
This is about 95% "the right way", and then I cheated on the last 5% instead of building a real EditEngine. We don't need it for anything else right now and some of the dialog workflows here are a little weird so I'm just planning to skip it for the moment unless it ends up being easier to do after the next phase (mail notifications) or something like that.
Test Plan: {F1652160}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10917
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15947
Summary:
Ref T10917. This primarily prepares these for transactions by giving us a place to:
- review old deactivated keys; and
- review changes to keys.
Future changes will add transactions and a timeline so key changes are recorded exhaustively and can be more easily audited.
Test Plan:
{F1652089}
{F1652090}
{F1652091}
{F1652092}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10917
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15946
Summary:
Via HackerOne. Currently, you can use "Lock Permanently" to lock a credential permanently, but you can still enable Conduit API access to it. This directly contradicts both intent of the setting and its description as presented to the user.
Instead:
- When a credential is locked, revoke Conduit API access.
- Prevent API access from being enabled for locked credentials.
- Prevent API access to locked credentials, period.
Test Plan:
- Created a credential.
- Enabled API access.
- Locked credential.
- Saw API access become disabled.
- Tried to enable API access; was rebuffed.
- Queried credential via API, wasn't granted access.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15944
Summary:
Ref T10917. Currently, when you delete an SSH key, we really truly delete it forever.
This isn't very consistent with other applications, but we built this stuff a long time ago before we were as rigorous about retaining data and making it auditable.
In partiular, destroying data isn't good for auditing after security issues, since it means we can't show you logs of any changes an attacker might have made to your keys.
To prepare to improve this, stop destoying data. This will allow later changes to become transaction-oriented and show normal transaction logs.
The tricky part here is that we have a `UNIQUE KEY` on the public key part of the key.
Instead, I changed this to `UNIQUE (key, isActive)`, where `isActive` is a nullable boolean column. This works because MySQL does not enforce "unique" if part of the key is `NULL`.
So you can't have two rows with `("A", 1)`, but you can have as many rows as you want with `("A", null)`. This lets us keep the "each key may only be active for one user/object" rule without requiring us to delete any data.
Test Plan:
- Ran schema changes.
- Viewed public keys.
- Tried to add a duplicate key, got rejected (already associated with another object).
- Deleted SSH key.
- Verified that the key was no longer actually deleted from the database, just marked inactive (in future changes, I'll update the UI to be more clear about this).
- Uploaded a new copy of the same public key, worked fine (no duplicate key rejection).
- Tried to upload yet another copy, got rejected.
- Generated a new keypair.
- Tried to upload a duplicate to an Almanac device, got rejected.
- Generated a new pair for a device.
- Trusted a device key.
- Untrusted a device key.
- "Deleted" a device key.
- Tried to trust a deleted device key, got "inactive" message.
- Ran `bin/ssh-auth`, got good output with unique keys.
- Ran `cat ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub | ./bin/ssh-auth-key`, got good output with one key.
- Used `auth.querypublickeys` Conduit method to query keys, got good active keys.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10917
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15943
Summary: Ref T10694. Switch default mode to HTML since it has a number of significant advantages and we haven't seen reports of significant problems.
Test Plan:
- Switched preference to default (saw "HTML" in UI).
- Sent myself some mail.
- Got HTML mail.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15885
Summary:
Ref T10694. If this feels good, I'd plan to eventually add something similar to other applications ("View Task", etc).
Not sure if we should keep the object link later in the mail body or not. I left it for now.
Test Plan: {F1307256, size=full}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10694
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15884
Summary: Wow! Real value here.
Test Plan: No more red underlines.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15941
Summary: Fixes T10493. See that task and inline comments for discussion.
Test Plan:
Created an object with some projects, saw the transaction in resulting mail:
{F1600496}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10493
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15942
Fixes T10981. Ref T10939. `arc` currently has some odd, hard-coded checks
(missing reviewers, all reviewers away) that depend on the field value being
in a certain format.
The recent changes swapped the field value from scalars (PHIDs) to
dictionaries and broke this workflow. It worked fine in testing because we
apply these checks very inconsistently (not on update or `--edit`).
To get around this for now, serialize into "PHID!" and then unserialize on
the other side. This is icky but keeps us from needing to require an `arc`
upgrade.
These checks are generally bad news and should move to the server side in the
long run (T4631).
(This probably prevents clean `arc diff`, so I'm just cowboy committing it.)
Auditors: chad
Summary:
Ref T10939. Fixes T10174. We can currently trigger "uninteresting" auditors in two ways:
- Packages with auditing disabled ("NONE" audits).
- Packages with auditing enabled, but they don't need an audit (e.g., author is a pacakge owner; "NOT REQUIRED" audits).
These audits aren't interesting (we only write them so we can list "commits in this package" from other UIs) but right now they take up the audit slot. In particular:
- They show in the UI, but are generally useless/confusing nowadays. The actual table of contents does a better job of just showing "which packages do these paths belong to" now, and shows all packages for each path.
- They block Herald from adding real auditors.
Change this:
- Don't show uninteresting auditors.
- Let Herald upgrade uninteresting auditors into real auditors.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/repository reparse --owners <commit> --force`, and `--herald` to trigger Owners and Herald rules.
- With a package with auditing disabled, triggered a "None" audit and saw it no longer appear in the UI with the patch applied.
- With a package with auditing disabled, added a Herald rule to trigger an audit. With the patch, saw it go through and upgrade the audit to "Audit Required".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10174, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15940
Summary:
Ref T10939. Fixes T10181. This slightly simplifies, then documents the auditing rules, which haven't been updated for a while. In particular:
- If an owner authored the change, never audit.
- Examine all reviewers to determine reviewer audit status, not just the first reviewer.
- Simplify some of the loading code a bit.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/repository reparse --owners <commit> --force` to trigger this stuff.
- Verified that the web UI did reasonable things with resulting audits.
- Read documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10181, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15939
Summary: Ref T10939. This adds UI, transactions, etc, to adjust dominion rules.
Test Plan:
- Read documentation.
- Changed dominion rules.
- Created packages on `/` ("A") and `/x` ("B") with "Auto Review: Review".
- Touched `/x`.
- Verified that A and B were added with strong dominion.
- Verified that only B was added when A was set to weak dominion.
- Viewed file in Diffusion, saw correct ownership with strong/weak dominion rules.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15936
Summary:
Ref T10939. This supports two settings for packages (although they can't be configured yet):
- **Strong Dominion**: If the package owns `a/`, it always owns every subpath, even if another package also owns the subpath. For example, if I own `src/differential/`, I always own it even if someone else claims `src/differential/js/` as part of the "Javascript" package. This is the current behavior, and the default.
- **Weak Dominion**: If the package owns `a/`, but another package owns `a/b/`, the package gives up control of those paths and no longer owns paths in `a/b/`. This is a new behavior which can make defining some types of packages easier.
In the next change, I'll allow users to switch these modes and document what they mean.
Test Plan:
- Ran existing unit tests.
- Added new unit tests.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: joel
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15935
Summary: Ref T10939. Fixes T4887. Supports "username!" to add a reviewer as blocking.
Test Plan: Added and removed blocking and non-blocking reviewers via CLI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4887, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15934
Summary:
Ref T10939. Adds a `blocking(...)` token.
This code is pretty iffy and going to get worse before it gets better, but the fix (T10967 + EditEngine) is going to be a fair chunk of work down the road.
Test Plan: {F1426966}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: scode
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15933
Summary: Fixes T10975. The "scramble attached file permissions when an object is saved" code is misfiring here too. See T10778 + D15803 for prior work.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade -f`.
- Edited the view policy of an OAuth server (prepatch: fatal; postpatch: worked great).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10975
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15938
Summary: Fixes T10972. Nothing actually updates this anymore, and only repositories ever did (e.g., Harbormaster and Drydock have never tracked it). Keeping track of this is more trouble than it's worth.
Test Plan: Grepped for constants, viewed a passphrase credential.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10972
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15932
Summary: The S3 fields are mandatory and if you only enter the ones in the docs you will immediately encounter a "Amazon S3 is Only Partially Configured" error. For Mailgun the error is more difficult to figure out - emails get stuck on Mailgun's side but the error is illegible. On Phabricator's side you have to go trawling through nginx logs to find "Mail signature is not valid. Check your Mailgun API key."
Test Plan: Deploy a new standalone instance, follow old instructions, fail. Deploy another one, follow updated instructions, win.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15931
Summary:
Ref T10939. I don't think this is hugely important, but it doesn't clutter things up much and it's nice as a hint.
T4055 was the original request specifically asking for this. It wanted a separate bucket, but I think this use case isn't common/strong enough to justify that.
I would like to improve Differential's "X depends on Y" feature in the long term. We don't tend to use/need it much, but it could easily do a better and more automatic job of supporting review of a group of revisions.
Test Plan: {F1426636}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15930
Summary: Ref T10939. These poor stragglers got left out in the rain. Didn't catch any issues otherwise.
Test Plan: {F1426604}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15929
Summary: Ref T10939. For various historical reasons, revision status is a numeric string. This comparison fails because it's `(string) !== (int)`. Just use `!=` so this will still work if we turn it into a real string in the future.
Test Plan: Tried a more specific test case locally, got better looking results in "Must Review" and "Should Review".
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15928
Summary:
Ref T10939. I'm not //totally// opposed to the existence of this element, but I think it's the kind of thing that would never make it upstream today. I think this should just be a T418 custom sort of thing in the long run, not a mainline upstream feature.
Overall, I think this thing is nearly useless and just adds visual clutter. My dashboard is about 100% red. This also sort of teaches users that it's fine to let revisions sit for a couple of days, which isn't what I'd like the UI to teach. Finally, removing it helps the UI feel a little less cluttered after the visually busy changes in D15926.
Test Plan: Grepped for removed config. Viewed revision list.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15927
Summary:
Ref T10939. Fixes T9263. Ref T4144.
First, this resolves users (converting users into all packages and projects they are responsible for) earlier, so bucketing can act on that data correctly. Previously, your own blocking reviews would appear in "Must Review" but your packages/projects' would not. Now, all of them will.
Second, this adds `exact(username)` to mean "just me, not my packages/projects". You can use this along with "Bucket: By Required Action" to create a personal view of "Active Revisions" if you'd like, and ignore all your project/package reviews.
Test Plan: Queried by "me" and "exact(me)", got reasonable looking results.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4144, T9263, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15925
Summary:
Ref T10939. Ref T4144. This splits the existing buckets ("Blocking Others", "Action Required", "Waiting on Others") into 6-7 buckets with a stronger focus on what the next action you need to take is.
See T10939#175423 for some discussion.
Overall, I think some of the root problems here are caused by reviewer laziness and shotgun review workflows (where a ton of people get automatically added to everything, probably unnecessarily), but these buckets haven't been updated since the introduction of blocking reviewers or project/package reviewers and I think splitting the 3 buckets into 6 buckets isn't unreasonable, even though it's kind of a lot of buckets and the root problem here is approximately "I want to ignore a bunch of stuff on my dashboard".
I didn't remove the old bucketing code yet since it's still in use on the default homepage.
This also isn't quite right until I fix the tokenizer to work properly, since it won't bucket project/package reviewers accurately.
Test Plan: {F1395972}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4144, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15924
Summary:
Ref T10939. Currently, Differential hard-codes some behaviors for the "active" filter. This introduces "buckets" to make this grouping behavior more general/flexible.
The buckets don't actually do any grouping yet, this just gets rid of the `$query === 'active'` stuff so far.
These buckets change the page size to a large value, becuase pagination won't currently work with bucketing.
The problem is that we normally paginate by selecting one more result than we need: so if we're building a page of size 10, we'll select 11 results. This is fast, and if we get 11 back, we know there's a next page with at least one result on it.
With buckets, we can't do this, since our 11 results might come back in these buckets:
- A, B, C, A, C, C, A, A, B, B, (B)
So we know there are more results, and we know that bucket B has more results, but we have no clue if bucket A and bucket C have more results or not (or if there's anything in bucket D, etc).
We might need to select a thousand more results to get the first (D) or the next (A).
So we could render something like "Some buckets have more results, click here to go to the next page", but users would normally expect to be able to see "This specific bucket, A, has more results.", and we can't do that without a lot more work.
It doesn't really matter for revisions, because almost no one has 1K of them, but this may need to be resolved eventually.
(I have some OK-ish ideas for resolving it but nothing I'm particularly happy with.)
Test Plan: {F1376542}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15923
Summary:
Ref T10939. Ref T4144. This moves the revision SearchEngine to modern code so I can add some kind of bucketing layer on top of it.
This seems to have worked pretty cleanly. One thing is that I removed the ability to search for "pending drafts":
- This was added in D1927 from a bootcamp task, was an indirect solution to a questionable problem, and almost certainly would not meet the bar today.
- Later, in D3324, we added the icons to the list. I think this is a better solution in general. In particular, it specifically addressed the query being kind of junky.
- At the time, Differential had a prebuilt "Drafts" filter. This was removed in D6347 with the move to ApplicationSearch, which simplified the large number of prebuilt filters. Although we got a lot of feedback about that, none requested that the drafts filter be restored.
Test Plan: Searched for responsible users, subscribers, orders, projects, repositories.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4144, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15921
Summary: Fixes T10959. This is the smallest/simplest fix that I could come up with, and I wasn't able to break it. Basically, I removed "line-height" and then adjusted other rules until the defaults looked reasonable again.
Test Plan:
Here's `24px / 48px impact` or something like it:
{F1310445}
{F1310446}
Here's normal stuff working properly without weird artifacts on the highlighting:
{F1310447}
Also tested Firefox and Chrome and got similar results.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: wxm20073527, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T10959
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15905
Summary:
Looks like some copy pasta snuck in. Also fixes a missed
parenthesis.
Test Plan: Eyeball it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15920
Summary:
Ref T10939. If you already own a package, don't trigger the subscribe/review rules.
Document how these rules work.
Test Plan:
- Read documentation.
- Removed reviewers, updated a revision, got autoreviewed.
- Joined package.
- Removed reveiwers, updated a revision, no more autoreview.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15918
Summary: Ref T10939. Packages are valid reviewers, so let Herald "Add Reviewers" and "Add Blocking Reviewers" actions add them.
Test Plan:
- Wrote a rule to add package reviewers.
- Hit the rule, saw a package reviewer added, viewed transcript.
{F1311731}
{F1311732}
{F1311733}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15917
Summary:
Ref T10939. Fixes T8887. This enables and implements the "review" and "blocking review" options for packages.
This is a bit copy-pastey from `DifferentialReviewersHeraldAction`, which doesn't feel awesome. I think the right fix is Glorious Infrasturcture, though -- I filed T10967 to track that.
Test Plan:
- Set package autoreveiw to "Review".
- Updated, got a reveiwer.
- Set autoreview to "blocking".
- Updated, got a blocking reviewer.
{F1311720}
{F1311721}
{F1311722}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8887, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15916
Summary:
Ref T10939. Ref T8887. This moves toward letting packages automatically become reviewers or blocking reviewers of owned code.
This change adds an "Auto Review" option to packages. Because adding reviewers/blocking reviewers is a little tricky, it doesn't actually have these options yet -- just a "subscribe" option. I'll do the reviewer work in the next update.
Test Plan:
Created a revision in a package with "Auto Review: Subscribe to Changes". The package got subscribed.
{F1311677}
{F1311678}
{F1311679}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T8887, T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15915
Summary:
Ref T10939. This lets you add packages as reviewers manually.
"Project Reviewers" now lists both projects and packages. I have renamed this to "Coalition Reviewers" but that's probably horrible and confusing. I'm not sure "Group Reviewers" is much better.
Test Plan:
- Added a package as a reviewer manually.
- Joined it, got authority over it.
- Saw the review on my dashboard.
- Accepted the revision, got authority extended to the package review.
{F1311652}
{F1311653}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10939
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15914
