Summary: This builds out and implements PHUIPropertyListView (container) and PHUIPropertyListItemView (section) as well as adding tabs.
Test Plan: Tested each page I edited with the exception of Releeph and Phortune, though those changes look ok to me diff wise. Updated examples page with tabs.
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7283
Summary:
we filter the $actors above such that its possible to have no $actor anymore (if $actor is not a deliverable email address). ergo, make sure we have actor before we start calling methods.
Fixes github issue 403
Test Plan: logic on this one - not 100% sure how to easily reproduce
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7284
Summary:
- Add an extra paginator at the top.
- Add a link to jump to the bottom (where the latest messages are).
- Align paginators with edge of content rather than the page.
Test Plan: Looked at the chatlog.
Reviewers: epriestley, chad, #blessed_reviewers
CC: chad, Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7280
Summary: UX on this could probably be better 'disabled' crumbs don't appear to have any visible difference, and the policy error has to load the /create page rather than being a modal - not sure on the way to fix these.
Test Plan: Tried to create a project with and without access, saw suitable error.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7279
Summary: Ref T603. I nuked this check by accident and neglected to test the negative case.
Test Plan: Saved a non-public policy (Herald Global) and a public policy (Maniphest View).
Reviewers: asherkin, btrahan
Reviewed By: asherkin
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7278
Test Plan: Looked at Home with Audit installed and uninstalled.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7277
Summary: Ref T603. Currently, we hard-code defense against setting policies to "Public" in several places, and special case only the CAN_VIEW policy. In fact, other policies (like Default View) should also be able to be set to public. Instead of hard-coding this, move it to the capability definitions.
Test Plan: Set default view policy in Maniphest to "Public", created a task, verified default policy.
Reviewers: btrahan, asherkin
Reviewed By: asherkin
CC: asherkin, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7276
Summary:
Ref T603. This isn't remotely usable yet, but I wanted to get any feedback before I build it out anymore.
I think this is a reasonable interface for defining custom policies? It's basically similar to Herald, although it's a bit simpler.
I imagine users will rarely interact with this, but this will service the high end of policy complexity (and allow the definition of things like "is member of LDAP group" or whatever).
Test Plan: See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, asherkin
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7217
Summary:
Ref T603. Allows the Differential view policy to be configured with a default.
I've omitted "edit" because I want to wait and see how comment/comment-action policies work out. I could imagine locking "edit" down to only the owner at some point, and providing a wider "interact" capability, or something like that, which would cover accept/reject/commandeer. Users in this group could still edit indirectly by commandeering first.
Test Plan: Created new revisions from the CLI and conduit.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7269
Summary:
Ref T603. In thinking about this, I think I went mad with power in creating this capability. I can't imagine any reason to give users access to Herald but not let them create rules.
We can restore this later if some install comes up with a good reason to have it, but in the interest of keeping policies as simple as possible, I think we're better off without it. In particular, if you don't want a group of users creating rules, just lock them out of the application entirely.
The "Manage Global Rules" capability is still around, I think that one's super good.
Test Plan: Edited Herald policies, created a rule.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7268
Summary: Ref T603. Allow global default policies to be configured for tasks.
Test Plan:
- Created task via web UI.
- Created task via Conduit.
- Created task via email.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7267
Summary: Ref T603. When the user encounters an action which is controlled by a special policy rule in the application, make it easier for applications to show the user what policy controls the action and what the setting is. I took this about halfway before and left a TODO, but turn it into something more useful.
Test Plan: See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7265
Summary: Ref T603. Use more modern elements.
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7264
Summary: Ref T603. Use the new hotness.
Test Plan: Edited Herald in Applications, tried to create rules / global rules without capabilities, got reasonable error messages.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7263
Summary: Fixes a few minor quirks when viewing maniphest on mobile.
Test Plan: shrink maniphest screen, easier to read.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7270
Summary: Adds the abilit to set a status color of warning or fail to navbar tab lists (for objectheaders)
Test Plan: uiexamples, photoshop
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7266
Summary:
Ref T603. I want to let applications define new capabilities (like "can manage global rules" in Herald) and get full support for them, including reasonable error strings in the UI.
Currently, this is difficult for a couple of reasons. Partly this is just a code organization issue, which is easy to fix. The bigger thing is that we have a bunch of strings which depend on both the policy and capability, like: "You must be an administrator to view this object." "Administrator" is the policy, and "view" is the capability.
That means every new capability has to add a string for each policy, and every new policy (should we introduce any) needs to add a string for each capability. And we can't do any piecemeal "You must be a {$role} to {$action} this object" becuase it's impossible to translate.
Instead, make all the strings depend on //only// the policy, //only// the capability, or //only// the object type. This makes the dialogs read a little more strangely, but I think it's still pretty easy to understand, and it makes adding new stuff way way easier.
Also provide more context, and more useful exception messages.
Test Plan:
- See screenshots.
- Also triggered a policy exception and verified it was dramatically more useful than it used to be.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7260
Summary: Ref T603. Apparently we made all policies possible at some point. Go us! This has no callsites.
Test Plan: `grep`, notice it's a private method
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7259
Summary: Ref T1279. Prerequisite for adding icons or other type information to tokenizers, since we don't currently have enough information to prefill them when rendering things from the server side. By passing handles in, the tokenizer can extract type information.
Test Plan:
- Searched by user in Audit.
- Sent Conpherence from profile page.
- Tried to send an empty conpherence.
- Searched Countdown by user.
- Edited CCs in Differential.
- Edited reviewers in Differential.
- Edited a commit's projects.
- Searched lint by owner.
- Searched feed by owner/project.
- Searched files by owner.
- Searched Herald by owner.
- Searched Legalpad by owner.
- Searched Macro by owner.
- Filtered Maniphest reports by project.
- Edited CCs in Maniphest.
- Searched Owners by owner.
- Edited an Owners package.
- Searched Paste by owner.
- Searched activity logs by owner.
- Searched for mocks by owner.
- Edited a mock's CCs.
- Searched Ponder by owner.
- Searched projects by owner.
- Edited a Releeph project's pushers.
- Searched Releeph by requestor.
- Edited "Uses Symbols" for an Arcanist project.
- Edited all tokenizers in main search.
- Searched Slowvote by user.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7248
Summary: Ref T603. We currently bomb out here, but should just continue forward. I'm fairly certain we don't even use this for anything anymore (it has been replaced by "depends on") but need to check that.
Test Plan: Created a new revision with `arc diff`.
Reviewers: ljalonen, btrahan, #blessed_reviewers, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7255
Summary: Ref T1279. I only tested the global case. :O
Test Plan: Created a personal "add me as blocking" rule.
Reviewers: btrahan, zeeg
Reviewed By: zeeg
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7261
Summary: Removes highlight from the 'notes' row, leaves for status and name.
Test Plan: Tested on a diff. Faked a note.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7258
Summary: There are reversed on retina displays/
Test Plan: Review on retina Mac
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7257
Summary: Missed these in the previous pass. Long term I'd like to move the results to tabs, will probably mock those up today and ask for your help coding.
Test Plan: Tested the changes on a diff.
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7256
Summary:
Ref T603. Ref T1279. Further improves transaction and policy support for Herald.
- Instead of deleting rules (which wipes out history and can't be undone) allow them to be disabled.
- Track disables with transactions.
- Gate disables with policy controls.
- Show policy and status information in the headers.
- Show transaction history on rule detail screens.
- Remove the delete controller.
- Support disabled queries in the ApplicationSearch.
Test Plan:
- Enabled and disabled rules.
- Searched for enabled/disabled rules.
- Verified disabled rules don't activate.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279, T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7247
Summary:
Ref T1279. This is a logical change.
- "Reject" (nee "Request Changes") is now sticky. The review won't transition to "Accepted" until the reviewer clears their objection. In practice, I think it always worked like this anyway (without technical enforcement, users just followed this rule naturally, since disobeying this rule is kind of a dick move) so I don't expect this to change much. I think this rule is easier to understand than the old rule now, given the multi-reviewer status and blocking reviewers.
- "Blocking Reviewer" and "Reject" now prevent a revision from transitioning to "Accepted". When reviewers accept, resign, or are removed, we do a check to see if the reivsion has: at least one user reviewer who has accepted; zero rejects; and zero blocks. If all conditions are satisfied, we transition it to "accepted".
Practically, the primary net effect of this is just to make blocking reviews actually block.
This is pretty messy, but there's not much we can do about it until after T2222, since we have two completely separate editor pathways which are both responsible for adjusting status. Eventually, these can merge into a single sane editor which implements reasonable rules in reaonable ways. But that day is not today.
Test Plan: With three users and a project, made a bunch of accepts, rejects, resigns and reviewer removals. I think I probably covered most of the pathways? There are a lot of interactions here.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, wisutsak.jaisue.7
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7245
Summary: Ref T1279. These reviewers don't actually create a logical block yet (that is, revisions still transition to "accepted" even in their presence), but this handles everything except that.
Test Plan: Added Herald rules and updated revisions; see screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7244
Summary:
Ref T1279. With the new per-reviewer status, you can always accept or reject a revision.
This is primarily cosmetic/UI changes. In particular, you've always been able to reject a rejected revision, the UI just didn't show you an option.
Test Plan: Accepted accepted revisions; rejected rejected revisions. See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7243
Summary: Ref T1279. If you accept a revision, also accept on behalf of all the projects you have authority to accept for.
Test Plan:
- Accepted a revision which I was a reviewer on, saw my own status and an authority project's status change to "Accepted".
- Accepted a revision which I was not a reviewer on, saw my own status be added (as "Accepted") and the project's status update.
Also, see screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, wisutsak.jaisue.7
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7242
Summary:
Ref T1279. We currently determine reviewers at display time, but this is bad for several reasons:
- It puts queries very close to the display layer.
- We have to query for each revision if we want to figure out authority for several.
- We need to figure it out in several places, so we'll end up with copies of this logic.
- The logic isn't trivial (exceptions for the viewer, exceptions to that rule for install configuration).
- We already do this "figure it out when we need it" stuff in Diffusion for audits and it's really bad: we have half-working copies of the logic spread all over the place.
Instead, put it in the Query. Callers query for it and get the data attached to the reviewer objects.
Test Plan:
- Looked at some revisions, verified the correct lines were highlighted.
- Looked at a revision I created and verified that projects I was a member of were not highlighted.
- With self-accept enabled, these //are// highlighted.
- Looked at a revision I did not create and verified that projects I was a member of were highlighted.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7241
Summary: Ref T603. Fixes T3921. Tightens up policy controls for file/object relationships in existing applications.
Test Plan:
- Uploaded new project image, verified it got an edge to the project.
- Uploaded new profile image, verified it got an edge to me.
- Uploaded new macro image, verified it got an edge to the macro.
- Uploaded new paste via web UI and conduit, verified it got attached.
- Replaced, added images to a mock, verified they got edges.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3921, T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7254
Summary:
Ref T603. Move toward stamping out all the Project / ProjectProfile query irregularities with respect to policies.
- Fixes a bug with Asana publishing when the remote task is deleted.
- Fixes an issue with Herald commit rules.
Test Plan:
- Viewed projects;
- edited projects;
- added and removed members from projects;
- republished Asana-bridged feed stories about commits.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7251
Summary: This adds setActionList to PropertyListView and properly places it in an archaic HTML 1.0 table.
Test Plan: test layouts with actions really tall or properties really tall. Always see a full height border.
Reviewers: epriestley, btrahan
CC: Korvin, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7239
Summary:
Ref T1279. This allows installs to implement two different flavors of project review. They can either implement this rule:
When:
[ ... ] [ ... ]
Take Action:
[ Add blockign reviewers ] [ Security ]
...which means "every revision matching X needs to be signed off by someone else on the Security team, //even if the author is on that team//". The alternative is to implement this rule:
When:
[ Author's projects ] [ do not include ] [ Security ]
[ ... ] [ ... ]
Take Action:
[ Add blocking reviewers ] [ Security ]
...which means that people on the Security team don't need a separate signoff from someone else on the team.
I think this weaker version maps to some of what, e.g., Google does (you need to be reviewed by someone with "readability" in a language, but if you have it that's good enough), but I could imagine cases like "Security" wanting to prevent self-review from satisfying the requirement.
@zeeg, not sure which of these use cases is relevant here, but either one should work after this.
Test Plan: Created rules with this field, verified it populated properly in the transcript.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: zeeg, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7238
Summary: Ref T1279. No logical changes, but cosmetically highlight stuff you have authority for, like we do in Diffusion.
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7237
Summary:
Ref T1279. Although I think this is a bad idea in general (we once supported it, removed it, and seemed better off for it) users expect it to exist and want it to be available. Give them enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot.
I will probably write some lengthy treatise on how you shouldn't use this rule later.
Implementation is straightforward because Differential previously supported this rule.
This rule can also be used to add project reviewers.
Test Plan: Made some "add reviewers" rules, created revisions, saw reviewers trigger.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7235
Summary: Ref T1279. Show separate sections for "Reviewers" and "Project Reviewers" (Differential) and for "Auditors" and "Package/Project Auditors" (Diffusion/Audit).
Test Plan:
- Looked at a commit. Saw separation.
- Looked at a revision. Saw separation.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7233
Summary:
Ref T1279. Two changes to the search/query for Differential:
- "Reviewers" now accepts users and projects.
- "Responsible Users" now includes revisions where a project you are a member of is a reviewer.
Test Plan:
- Searched for project reviewers.
- Verified that the dashboard now shows reviews which I'm only part of via project membership.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7231
Summary:
Ref T1279. No actual logical changes, but:
- You can now add projects as reviewers from the revision view typeahead ("Add Reviewers" action).
- You can now add projects as reviewers from the revision detail typeahead.
- You can now add projects as reviewers from the CLI (`#yoloswag`).
- Generated commit messages now list project reviewers (`Reviewers: #yoloswag`).
I'll separate projects from users in the "Reviewers" tables in the next revision.
Test Plan:
- Added projects as reviewers using the web UI and CLI.
- Used `arc amend --show --revision Dnnn` to generate commit messages.
- Viewed revision with project reviewers in web UI.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7230
Summary: Ref T1279. Updates status to 'accepted' or 'commented' when the user takes those actions.
Test Plan:
- Commented on a revision, got a comment icon.
- Accepted a revision, got an accept icon.
- Commented again, icon stayed as "accept".
- Faked the "old diff" states.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7229
Summary:
Ref T1279. No logical changes, just updates the reviewer display style.
We currently keep track of only "requested changes".
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7228
Summary:
Ref T1279. @champo did a lot of this work already; we've been doing double writes for a long time.
Add "double reads" (reading the edge table as both the "relationship" table and as the "reviewer status" table), and migrate all the data.
I'm not bothering to try to recover old reviewer status (e.g., we could infer from transactions who accepted old revisions) because it wold be very complicated and doesn't seem too valuable.
Test Plan:
- Without doing the migration, used Differential. Verified that reads and writes worked. Most of the data was there anyway since we've been double-writing.
- Performed the migration. Verified that everything was still unchanged.
- Dropped the edge table, verified all reviweer data vanished.
- Migrated again, verified the reviewer stuff was restored.
- Did various cc/reviewer/subscriber queries, got consistent results.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: champo, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1279
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7227
