Summary:
Depends on D18926. Ref T6203. Ref T13048. Herald rule repetition policies are stored as integers but treated as strings in most contexts.
After D18926, the integer stuff is almost totally hidden inside `HeraldRule` and getting rid of it completely isn't too tricky.
Do so now.
Test Plan:
- Created "only the first time" and "every time" rules. Did a SELECT on their rows in the database.
- Ran migrations, got a clean bill of health from `storage adjust`.
- Did another SELECT on the rows, saw a faithful conversion to strings "every" and "first".
- Edited and reviewed rules, swapping them between "every" and "first".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13048, T6203
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18927
Summary:
Depends on D18925. Ref T13048. Currently, HeraldRule stores policies as integers (0 or 1) in the database.
The application tries to mostly use strings ("first", "every"), but doesn't do a good job of hiding the fact that the values are integers deeper in the stack. So we end up with a lot of code like this:
```lang=php
$stored_int_value = $rule->getRepetitionPolicy();
$equivalent_string = HeraldRepetitionPolicyConfig::getString($stored_int_value);
$is_first = ($equivalent_string === HeraldRepetitionPolicyConfig::FIRST);
```
This happens in several places and is generally awful. Replace it with:
```lang=php
$is_first = $rule->isRepeatFirst();
```
To do this, merge `HeraldRepetitionPolicyConfig` into `HeraldRule` and hide all the mess inside the methods.
(This may let us just get rid of the integers in a later change, although I'm not sure I want to commit to that.)
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `HeraldRepetitionPolicyConfig`, no more hits.
- Grepped for `setRepetitionPolicy(...)` and `getRepetitionPolicy(...)`. There are no remaining callers outside of `HeraldRule`.
- Browed and edited several rules. I'll vet this more convincingly after adding the new repetition rule.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13048
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18926
Summary:
Depends on D18924. Ref T13048. Each adapter defines which repetition options ("every time", "only the first time") users may select for rules.
Currently, this is all explicit and hard-coded. However, every adapter really just implements this rule (except for some bugs, see below):
> You can pick "only the first time" if this adapter fires more than once on the same object.
Since we already have a `isSingleEventAdapter()` method which lets us tell if an adapter fires more than once, just write this rule in the base class and delete all the copy/pasting.
This also fixes two bugs because of the copy/pasting: Pholio Mocks and Phriction Documents did not allow you to write "only the first time" rules. There's no reason for this, they just didn't copy/paste enough methods when they were implemented.
This will make a future diff (which introduces an "if the rule did not match last time" policy) cleaner.
Test Plan:
- Checked several different types of rules, saw appropriate options in the dropdown (pre-commit: no options; tasks: first or every).
- Checked mocks and wiki docs, saw that you can now write "only the first time" rules.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13048
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18925
Summary:
Ref T13048. This migration is from January 2012 and probably only impacted Facebook.
It references `HeraldRepetitionPolicyConfig`, which I'd like to change significantly. I initially just replaced the constant with a literal `0`, but I don't think there's any actual value in retaining this migration nowadays.
The cost of removing this migration is: if you installed Phabricator before January 2012 and haven't upgraded since then, you'll have a few more rows in the `APPLIED` table than necessary. Herald will still work correctly.
Test Plan: Reading.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13048
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18924
Summary: Depends on D18928. Ref T13043. Add some automated test coverage for SSH revocation rules.
Test Plan: Ran tests, got a clean bill of health.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18929
Summary:
Ref T13043. In an earlier change I updated this langauge from "Deactivate" to "Revoke", but the behavior doesn't quite match.
This table has a unique key on `<isActive, keyBody>`, which enforces the rule that "a key can only be active for one unique user".
However, we set `isActive` to `null` when we revoke a key, and multiple rows are allowed to have the value `<null, "asdf">` (since a `null` column in a unique key basically means "don't enforce this unique key").
This is intentional, to support this workflow:
- You add key X to bot A.
- Whoops, wrong account.
- You revoke key X from bot A.
- You add key X to bot B.
This isn't necessarily a great workflow -- ideally, you'd throw key X away and go generate a new key after you realize you made a mistake -- but it's the sort of practical workflow that users are likely to expect and want to see work ("I don't want to generate a new key, it's already being used by 5 other services and cycling it is a ton of work and this is just a test install for my dog anyway."), and there's no technical reason we can't support it.
To prevent users from adding keys on the revocation list back to their account, just check explicitly.
(This is probably better in general anyway, because "cert-authority" support from PHI269 may mean that two keys are "equivalent" even if their text differs, and we may not be able to rely on a database test anyway.)
Test Plan:
- Added the key `ssh-rsa asdf` to my account.
- Revoked it.
- Tried to add it again.
- Before patch: worked.
- After patch: error, "this key has been revoked".
- Added it to a different account (the "I put it on the wrong bot" workflow).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18928
Summary:
Ref T13025. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/bulk-edit-no-actions-available/1011/1>.
I'm not sure if this is what the user is seeing, but in Chrome, the `<select />` does not automatically get set to the first valid value like it does in Safari.
Set it to the first valid value explicitly.
Test Plan: In Chrome, bulk editor previously hit a JS error when trying to read a bad action off the `<select />`. After patch, bulk edits go through cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18923
Summary:
Fixes T5965.
Fixes two issues:
- Observing an empty repository could write a warning to the log.
- Mirroring an empty repository to a remote could fail.
For observing:
If newly-created with `git init --bare`, `git ls-remote` will
return the empty string. Properly return an empty set of refs, rather
than attempting to parse the single "line" that is produced by
splitting that on newlines:
```
[2018-01-23 18:47:00] ERROR 8: Undefined offset: 1 at [/phab_path/phabricator/src/applications/repository/engine/PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine.php:405]
arcanist(head=master, ref.master=5634f8410176), phabricator(head=master, ref.master=12551a1055ce), phutil(head=master, ref.master=4755785517cf)
#0 PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine::loadGitRemoteRefs(PhabricatorRepository) called at [<phabricator>/src/applications/repository/engine/PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine.php:343]
#1 PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine::executeGitUpdate() called at [<phabricator>/src/applications/repository/engine/PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine.php:126]
#2 PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine::pullRepositoryWithLock() called at [<phabricator>/src/applications/repository/engine/PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine.php:40]
#3 PhabricatorRepositoryPullEngine::pullRepository() called at [<phabricator>/src/applications/repository/management/PhabricatorRepositoryManagementUpdateWorkflow.php:59]
...
```
For mirroring:
`git` treats `git push --mirror` specially when a repository is empty. Detect this case by seeing if `git for-each-ref --count 1` does anything. If the repository is empty, just bail.
Test Plan:
- Observed an empty and non-empty repository.
- Mirrored an empty and non-empty repository.
Reviewers: alexmv, amckinley
Reviewed By: alexmv
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5965
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18920
Summary: Help for GD SetupChcek was missing the "how to install extension" content.
Test Plan: Uninstalled gd, validated extension installation instructions were present in Setup Issue.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18922
Summary:
See PHI309. There is a window of time between when all builds pass and when Harbormaster actually publishes a revision out of draft.
If any other user tries to interact with the revision during that window, they'll pick up the undraft transaction as a side effect. However, they won't have permission to apply it and will be stopped by a validation error.
Instead, only automatically publish a revision if the actor is the revision author or some system/application user (essentially always Harbormaster).
Test Plan:
- Added a `echo ...; sleep(30);` to `HarbormasterBuildEngine->updateBuildable()` before the `applyTransactions()` at the bottom.
- Wrote an "Always, run an HTTP request" Herald rule and Harbormaster build plan.
- Ran daemons with `bin/phd debug task`.
- Created a new revision with `arc diff`, as user A.
- Waited for `phd` to enter the race window.
- In a separate browser, as user B, submitted a comment via `differential.revision.edit`.
- Before patch: edits during the race window were rejected with a validation error, "you don't have permission to request review".
- After patch: edits go through cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18921
Summary: Depends on D18917. Ref T13046. While I'm in here, update this to use more modern construction.
Test Plan: Browed and queried for push logs.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13046
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18918
Summary:
Depends on D18915. Ref T13046.
- Distinguish between HTTP and HTTPS.
- Use more constants and fewer magical strings.
- For HTTP responses, give them better type information and more helpful UI behaviors.
Test Plan: Pulled over SSH and HTTP. Reviewed resulting logs from the web UI. Hit errors like missing/invalid credentials.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13046
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18917
Summary: Depends on D18914. Updates this Query to use slightly more modern construction while I'm working in adjacent code.
Test Plan: Viewed push logs in web UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18915
Summary:
Depends on D18912. Ref T13046. Add a UI to browse the existing pull log table.
The actual log still has some significant flaws, but get the basics working.
Test Plan: {F5391909}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13046
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18914
Summary:
See PHI305. Ref T13046.
The SSH workflows currently extend `PhabricatorManagementWorkflow` to benefit from sharing all the standard argument parsing code. Sharing the parsing code is good, but it also means they inherit a `getViewer()` method which returns the ommnipotent viewer.
This is appropriate for everything else which extends `ManagementWorkflow` (like `bin/storage`, `bin/auth`, etc.) but not appropriate for SSH workflows, which have a real user.
This caused a bug with the pull logs where `pullerPHID` was not recorded properly. We used `$this->getViewer()->getPHID()` but the correct code was `$this->getUser()->getPHID()`.
To harden this against future mistakes:
- Don't extend `ManagementWorkflow`. Extend `PhutilArgumentWorkflow` instead. We **only** want the argument parsing code.
- Rename `get/setUser()` to `get/setSSHUser()` to make them explicit.
Then, fix the pull log bug by calling `getSSHUser()` instead of `getViewer()`.
Test Plan:
- Pulled and pushed to a repository over SSH.
- Grepped all the SSH stuff for the altered symbols.
- Saw pulls record a valid `pullerPHID` in the pull log.
- Used `echo {} | ssh ... conduit conduit.ping` to test conduit over SSH.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13046
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18912
Summary: Depends on D18910. Ref T13043. Provides reasonable user-facing documentation about the general role and utility of this tool.
Test Plan: Read document.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18911
Summary:
Depends on D18908. Ref T13043. Allow users to get information about what revokers do with a new `--list` flag.
You can use `--list --type <key>` to get information about a specfic revoker.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/auth revoke --list`, saw a list of revokers with useful information.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18910
Summary:
Depends on D18907. Ref T13043. Ref T12509. We have some weird old password digest behavior that isn't terribly concerning, but also isn't great.
Specifically, old passwords were digested in weird ways before being hashed. Notably, account passwords were digested with usernames, so your password stops working if your username is chagned. Not the end of the world, but silly.
Mark all existing hashes as "v1", and automatically upgrade then when they're used or changed. Some day, far in the future, we could stop supporting these legacy digests and delete the code and passwords and just issue upgrade advice ("Passwords which haven't been used in more than two years no longer work."). But at least get things on a path toward sane, modern behavior.
Test Plan: Ran migration. Spot-checked that everthing in the database got marked as "v1". Used an existing password to login successfully. Verified that it was upgraded to a `null` (modern) digest. Logged in with it again.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043, T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18908
Summary:
Depends on D18906. Ref T13043. When SSH keys are edited, we normally include a warning that if you don't recognize the activity you might have problems in the mail body.
Currently, this warning is also shown for revocations with `bin/auth revoke --type ssh`. However, these revocations are safe (revocations are generally not dangerous anyway) and almost certainly legitimate and administrative, so don't warn users about them.
Test Plan:
- Created and revoked a key.
- Creation mail still had warning; revocation mail no longer did.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18907
Summary:
Depends on D18904. Ref T13043. If an attacker compromises a victim's session and bypasses their MFA, they can try to guess the user's current account password by making repeated requests to change it: if they guess the right "Old Password", they get a different error than if they don't.
I don't think this is really a very serious concern (the attacker already got a session and MFA, if configured, somehow; many installs don't use passwords anyway) but we get occasional reports about it from HackerOne. Technically, it's better policy to rate limit it, and this should reduce the reports we receive.
Test Plan: Tried to change password over and over again, eventually got rated limited. Used `bin/auth unlimit` to clear the limit, changed password normally without issues.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18906
Summary:
Ref T13043. After D18903, this data has migrated to shared infrastructure and has no remaining readers or writers.
Just delete it now, since the cost of a mistake here is very small (users need to "Forgot Password?" and pick a new password).
Test Plan: Grepped for `passwordHash`, `passwordSalt`, and variations.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18904
Summary:
Ref T13043. This moves user account passwords to the new shared infrastructure.
There's a lot of code changes here, but essentially all of it is the same as the VCS password logic in D18898.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration.
- Spot checked table for general sanity.
- Logged in with an existing password.
- Hit all error conditions on "change password", "set password", "register new account" flows.
- Verified that changing password logs out other sessions.
- Verified that revoked passwords of a different type can't be selected.
- Changed passwords a bunch.
- Verified that salt regenerates properly after password change.
- Tried to login with the wrong password, which didn't work.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18903
Summary:
Ref T13045. See that task for discussion.
This replaces `digestForIndex()` with a "clever" algorithm in `digestForAnchor()`. The new digest is the same as `digestForIndex()` except when the original output was "." or "_". In those cases, a replacement character is selected based on entropy accumulated by the digest function as it iterates through the string.
Test Plan: Added unit tests.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13045
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18909
Summary:
Ref T13043. We have ~4 copies of this logic (registration, lost password recovery, set password, set VCS password).
Currently it varies a bit from case to case, but since it's all going to be basically identical once account passwords swap to the new infrastructure, bring it into the Engine so it can live in one place.
This also fixes VCS passwords not being affected by `account.minimum-password-length`.
Test Plan: Hit all errors in "VCS Password" panel. Successfully changed password.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18902
Summary:
Ref T13043. This cleans some things up to prepare for moving account passwords to shared infrastructure.
Currently, the (very old, fairly unusual) `bin/accountadmin` tool can set account passwords. This is a bit weird, generally not great, and makes upgrading to shared infrastructure more difficult. Just get rid of this to simplify things. Many installs don't have passwords and this is pointless and unhelpful in those cases.
Instead, let `bin/auth recover` recover any account, not just administrator accounts. This was a guardrail against administrative abuse, but it has always seemed especially flimsy (since anyone who can run the tool can easily comment out the checks) and I use this tool in cluster support with some frequency, occasionally just commenting out the checks. This is generally a better solution than actually setting a password on accounts anyway. Just get rid of the check and give users enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot with if they truly desire.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/accountadmin`, didn't get prompted to swap passwords anymore.
- Ran `bin/auth recover` to recover a non-admin account.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18901
Summary:
Ref T13043. In D18898 I moved VCS passwords to the new shared infrastructure.
Before account passwords can move, we need to make two changes:
- For legacy reasons, VCS passwords and Account passwords have different "digest" algorithms. Both are more complicated than they should be, but we can't easily fix it without breaking existing passwords. Add a `PasswordHashInterface` so that objects which can have passwords hashes can implement custom digest logic for each password type.
- Account passwords have a dedicated external salt (`PhabricatorUser->passwordSalt`). This is a generally reasonable thing to support (since not all hashers are self-salting) and we need to keep it around so existing passwords still work. Add salt support to `AuthPassword` and make it generate/regenerate when passwords are updated.
Then add a nice story about password digestion.
Test Plan: Ran migrations. Used an existing VCS password; changed VCS password. Tried to use a revoked password. Unit tests still pass. Grepped for callers to legacy `PhabricatorHash::digestPassword()`, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18900
Summary:
Ref T13043. After D18898, this has been migrated to new, more modern storage and no longer has any readers or writers.
One migration from long ago (early 2014) is affected. Since this is ancient and the cost of dropping this is small (see inline), I just dropped it.
I'll note this in the changelog.
Test Plan: Ran migrations, got a clean bill of health from `storage status`. Grepped for removed symbol.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18899
Summary:
Ref T13043. Migrate VCS passwords away from their dedicated table to new the new shared infrastructure.
Future changes will migrate account passwords and remove the old table.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Cloned with the same password that was configured before the migrations (worked).
- Cloned with a different, invalid password (failed).
- Changed password.
- Cloned with old password (failed).
- Cloned with new password (worked).
- Deleted password in web UI.
- Cloned with old password (failed).
- Set password to the same password as it currently is set to (worked, no "unique" collision).
- Set password to account password. !!This (incorrectly) works for now until account passwords migrate, since the uniqueness check can't see them yet.!!
- Set password to a new unique password.
- Cloned (worked).
- Revoked the password with `bin/auth revoke`.
- Verified web UI shows "no password set".
- Verified that pull no longer works.
- Verified that I can no longer select the revoked password.
- Verified that accounts do not interact:
- Tried to set account B to account A's password (worked).
- Tried to set account B to a password revoked on account A (worked).
- Spot checked the `password` and `passwordtransaction` tables for saniity.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18898
Summary:
Ref T13043. When we verify a password and a better hasher is available, we automatically upgrade the stored hash to the stronger hasher.
Add test coverage for this workflow and fix a few bugs and issues, mostly related to shuffling the old hasher name into the transaction.
This doesn't touch anything user-visible yet.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18897
Summary:
Ref T13043. This provides a new piece of shared infrastructure that VCS passwords and account passwords can use to validate passwords that users enter.
This isn't reachable by anything yet.
The test coverage of the "upgrade" flow (where we rehash a password to use a stronger hasher) isn't great in this diff, I'll expand that in the next change and then start migrating things.
Test Plan: Added a bunch of unit tests.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18896
Summary: Ref T13043. I'd like to replace the manual credential revocation in the Phacility export workflow with shared code in `bin/auth revoke`, but we need it to run non-interactively. Add a `--force` flag purely to make our lives easier.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/auth revoke --everywhere ...` with and without `--force`. Got prompted without, got total annihilation with.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18895
Summary:
Ref T13043. Currently:
- Passwords are stored separately in the "VCS Passwords" and "User" tables and don't share as much code as they could.
- Because User objects are all over the place in the code, password hashes are all over the place too (i.e., often somewhere in process memory). This is a very low-severity, theoretical sort of issue, but it could make leaving a stray `var_dump()` in the code somewhere a lot more dangerous than it otherwise is. Even if we never do this, third-party developers might. So it "feels nice" to imagine separating this data into a different table that we rarely load.
- Passwords can not be //revoked//. They can be //deleted//, but users can set the same password again. If you believe or suspect that a password may have been compromised, you might reasonably prefer to revoke it and force the user to select a //different// password.
This change prepares to remedy these issues by adding a new, more modern dedicated password storage table which supports storing multiple password types (account vs VCS), gives passwords real PHIDs and transactions, supports DestructionEngine, supports revocation, and supports `bin/auth revoke`.
It doesn't actually make anything use this new table yet. Future changes will migrate VCS passwords and account passwords to this table.
(This also gives third party applications a reasonable place to store password hashes in a consistent way if they have some need for it.)
Test Plan: Added some basic unit tests to cover general behavior. This is just skeleton code for now and will get more thorough testing when applications move.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18894
Summary: Ref T13043. Adds CLI support for revoking SSH keys. Also retargets UI language from "Deactivate" to "Revoke" to make it more clear that this is a one-way operation. This operation is already correctly implemented as a "Revoke" operation.
Test Plan: Used `bin/auth revoke --type ssh` to revoke keys, verified they became revoked (with proper transactions) in the UI. Revoked keys from the web UI flow.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18893
Summary: Ref T13043. Allows CLI revocation of login sessions.
Test Plan: Used `bin/auth revoke --type session` with `--from` and `--everywhere` to revoke sessions. Saw accounts get logged out in web UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18892
Summary: Ref T13025. Fixes T10973. Fairly straightforward. The "points" type is just an alias for "text" today.
Test Plan: Bulk edited points.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10973
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18889
Summary: Ref T13025. This makes limits (for fields like "Assign To") work in the bulk editor, so you can't type "Assign to: x, y, z" anymore.
Test Plan: Hit limit for "Assign to" and a custom project field. No limit for "Add subscribers".
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18888
Summary:
See PHI173. Currently, Herald has an "Assign to" action for tasks, and you can specify custom fields with datasource values (like users or projects) that have a limit (like 1 "Owner", or 12 "Jury Members").
Herald doesn't support these limits right now, so you can write `[ Assign to ][ X, Y, Z ]`. This just means "Assign to X", but make it more clear by actually enforcing the limit in the UI.
Test Plan:
- Created a "projects" custom field with limit 1.
- Tried to create actions that 'assign to' or 'set custom field to' more than one thing, got helpfully rebuffed by the UI.
- Created an "add subscribers" action with more than one value.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18887
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/files-created-from-repository-contents-slightly-over-one-chunk-in-size-are-truncated-to-exactly-one-chunk-in-size/988/1>. Three issues here:
- When we finish reading `git cat-file ...` or whatever, we can end up with more than one chunk worth of bytes left in the internal buffer if the read is fast. Use `while` instead of `if` to make sure we write the whole buffer.
- Limiting output with `setStdoutSizeLimit()` isn't really a reliable way to limit the size if we're also reading from the buffer. It's also pretty indirect and confusing. Instead, just let the `FileUploadSource` explicitly implement a byte limit in a straightforward way.
- We weren't setting the time limit correctly on the main path.
Overall, this could cause >4MB files to "write" as 4MB files, with the rest of the file left in the UploadSource buffer. Since these files were technically under the limit, they could return as valid. This was intermittent.
Test Plan:
- Pushed a ~4.2MB file.
- Reloaded Diffusion a bunch, sometimes saw the `while/if` buffer race and produce a 4MB file with a prompt to download it. (Other times, the buffer worked right and the page just says "this file is too big, sorry").
- Applied patches.
- Reloaded Diffusion a bunch, no longer saw bad behavior or truncated files.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18885
Summary:
See PHI287. Currently, you can't get very much information about a task in the worker queue from the web UI.
This is largely intentional (e.g., it's bad if we let you inspect the content of a "send an administrator's password reset email" task), and a lot of the data is task-class specific so it would be a lot of work to expose it, but we can add one useful piece of information pretty easily: for tasks with an `objectPHID` that points at a valid object that's visible to the user, tell the user which object the task is associated with.
Test Plan: {F5386562}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18890
Summary: See PHI292. This is just a generalization of D18851: feed stories have the same issue as mail. Don't hide "requested a review" in either mail or feed.
Test Plan:
- Enable prototypes.
- No harbormaster builds.
- Create a revision.
- Pre-patch: no feed story.
- Post-patch: feed story.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18886
Summary:
Fixes T13040. To reproduce:
- View a file with blame enabled, where some line has an associated revision (say, `D123`).
- Edit `D123` so it exists and is a valid revision, but the viewer can't see it.
- Reload the page.
Instead, only add revisions to the map if we actually managed to load them.
Test Plan: Page no longer fatals.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13040
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18884
Summary:
Fixes T13042. This hooks up the new "silent" mode from D18882 and makes it actually work.
The UI (where we tell you to go run some command and then reload the page) is pretty clumsy, but should solve some problems for now and can be cleaned up eventually. The actual mechanics (timeline aggregation, Herald interaction, etc.) are on firmer ground.
Test Plan:
- Made a normal bulk edit, got mail and feed stories.
- Made a silent bulk edit, no mail and no feed.
- Saw "Silent Edit" marker in timeline for silent edits:
{F5386245}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18883
Summary:
Ref T13042. This adds a "silent" edit mechanism which suppresses feed stories, email, and notifications.
The other behaviors here are:
- The transactions are marked as "silent" so we can render a hint in the UI in the future to make it clear to users that they aren't missing email.
- If the editor uses Herald, mail rules are suppressed so they don't fire incorrectly (this mostly affects "the first time this rule matches, send me an email" rules: without this, they'd match "the first time" on the bulk edit, not send email, then never match again since they already matched).
- If the edit queues additional edits, those are applied silently too.
This doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) actually change any behavior since you can't apply silent edits yet.
Test Plan:
Somewhat theoretical, since this isn't reachable yet. Should get meaningful testing in an upcoming change.
Did a bit of var_dump() / debug poking to attempt to verify that nothing too crazy is happening.
Viewed and edited objects, no changes in behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18882
Summary:
Ref T13042. This is a very, very old policy-violating option from yesteryear which supported build systems publishing updates by adding comments to revisions, without sending email about it.
Harbormaster has served this role for a long time and this is policy-violating in the general case (it allows attackers to act in secret).
Test Plan: Grepped for affected symbols.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13042
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18881
Summary: Ref T13025. We're getting kind of a lot of actions, so put them in nice groups so they're easier to work with.
Test Plan: {F5386038}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18880
Summary: Ref T13025. Fixes T5689. A straightforward change!
Test Plan: Used the bulk editor to modify a custom "select" field like the one in T5689.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T5689
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18879
Summary:
Ref T13025. This is some minor technical stuff: make the "select" bulk edit type a little more consistent with other types by passing data down instead of having it reach up the stack. This simplifies the implementation of a custom field "select" in a future change.
Also, provide an option list to the "select" edit field for object subtypes. This is only accessible via Conduit so it currently never actually renders anything in the UI, but with the bulk edit stuff we get some initialization order issues if we don't set anything. This will also make any future changes which expose subtypes more broadly more straightforward.
Test Plan:
- Bulk edited "select" fields, like "Status" and "Priority".
- No more fatal when trying to `getOptions()` internally on the subtype field.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18878
Summary:
Ref T13025. This allows custom tokenizer fields, like a "Owning Group" field, to be edited with the bulk editor.
See PHI173 for some context.
Test Plan: Edited a custom "Owner" field (a project tokenizer) with the bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18877
