Summary:
Depends on D19018. Fixes T4776. Ref T13053. When you remove someone from an object's recipient list (for example, by removing them a reviewer, auditor, subscriber, owner or author) we currently do not send them mail about it because they're no longer connected to the object.
In many of these cases (Commandeer, Reassign) the actual action in the UI adds them back to the object somehow (as a reviewer or subscriber, respectively) so this doesn't actually matter. However, there's no recovery mechanism for reviewer or subscriber removal.
This is slightly bad from a policy/threat viewpoint since it means an attacker can remove all the recipients of an object "somewhat" silently. This isn't really silent, but it's less un-silent than it should be.
It's also just not very good from a human interaction perspective: if Alice removes Bob as a reviewer, possibly "against his will", he should be notified about that. In the good case, Alice wrote a nice goodbye note that he should get to read. In the bad case, he should get a chance to correct the mistake.
Also add a `removed(@user)` mail stamp so you can route these locally if you want.
Test Plan:
- Created and edited some different objects without catching anything broken.
- Removed subscribers from tasks, saw the final email include the removed recipients with a `removed()` stamp.
I'm not totally sure this doesn't have any surprising behavior or break any weird objects, but I think anything that crops up should be easy to fix.
Reviewers: amckinley
Subscribers: sophiebits
Maniphest Tasks: T13053, T4776
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19019
Summary:
Depends on D19004. Ref T13053. Ref T12677. If the new `cluster.mailers` is configured, make use of it. Also use it in the Sengrid/Mailgun inbound stuff.
Also fix a bug where "Must Encrypt" mail to no recipients could fatal because no `$mail` was returned.
Test Plan: Processed some mail locally. The testing on this is still pretty flimsy, but I plan to solidify it in an upcoming change.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053, T12677
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19005
Summary:
Ref T13053. When you mention one object on another (or link two objects together with an action like "Edit Parent Revisions"), we write a transaction on each side to add the "alice added subtask X" and "alice added parent task Y" items to the timeline.
This behavior now causes problems in T13053 with the "Must Encrypt" flag because it prevents the flag from being applied to the corresponding "inverse edge" mail.
This was added in rP5050389f as a quick workaround for a fatal related to Editors not having enough data to apply Herald on mentions. However, that was in 2014, and since then:
- Herald got a significant rewrite to modularize all the rules and adapters.
- Editing got a significant upgrade in EditEngine and most edit workflows now operate through EditEngine.
- We generally do more editing on more pathways, everything is more modular, and we have standardized how data is loaded to a greater degree.
I suspect there's no longer a problem with just running Herald here, and can't reproduce one. If anything does crop up, it's probably easy (and desirable) to fix it.
This makes Herald fire a little more often: if someone writes a rule, mentioning or creating a relationship to old tasks will now make the rule act. Offhand, that seems fine. If it turns out to be weird, we can probably tailor Herald's behavior.
Test Plan:
I wasn't able to break anything:
- Mentioned a task on another task (original issue).
- Linked tasks with commits, mocks, revisions.
- Linked revisions with commits, tasks.
- Mentioned users, revisions, and commits.
- Verified that mail generated by creating links (e.g., Revision > Edit Tasks) now gets the "Must Encrypt" flag properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18999
Summary:
Ref T13053. Adds revision stamps (status, reviewers, etc). Adds Herald rule stamps, like the existing X-Herald-Rules header.
Removes the "self" stamps, since you can just write a rule against `whatever(@epriestley)` equivalently. If there's routing logic around this, it can live in the routing layer. This avoids tons of self-actor, self-mention, self-reviewer, self-blocking-reviewer, self-resigned-reviewer, etc., stamps.
Use `natcasesort()` instead of `sort()` so that numeric values (like monograms) sort `9, 80, 700` instead of `700, 80, 9`.
Remove the commas from rendering since they don't really add anything.
Test Plan: Edited tasks and revisions, looked at mail stamps, saw stamps that looked pretty reasonable (with no more self stuff, no more commas, sorting numbers, and Herald stamps).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18997
Summary: Ref T13053. Adds more mail tags with information available on the Editor object.
Test Plan: Banged around in Maniphest, viewed the resulting mail, all the stamps seemed to align with reality.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18995
Summary:
Ref T10448. Currently, we use "mail tags" (in {nav Settings > Email Preferences}) to give users some ability to route mail. There are a number of major issues with this:
- It isn't modular and can't be extended by third-party applications.
- The UI is a giant mess of 5,000 individual settings.
- Settings don't map clearly to actual edits.
- A lot of stuff isn't covered by any setting.
This adds a new system, called "mail stamps", which is similar to "mail tags" but tries to fix all these problems.
I called these "stamps" because: stamps make sense with mail; we can't throw away the old system just yet and need to keep it around for a bit; we don't use this term for anything else; it avoids confusion with project tags.
(Conceptually, imagine these as ink stamps like "RETURN TO SENDER" or "FRAGILE", not actual postage stamps.)
The only real "trick" here is that later versions of this will need to enumerate possible stamps for an object and maybe all possible stamps for all objects in the system. This is why stamp generation is separated into a "template" phase and a "value" phase. In future changes, the "template" phase can be used on its own to generate documentation and typeaheads and let users build rules. This may need some more refinement before it really works since I haven't built any of that yet.
Also adds a preference for getting stamps in the header only (default) or header and body (better for Gmail, which can't route based on headers).
Test Plan:
Fiddled with preference, sent some mail and saw a "STAMPS" setting in the body and an "X-Phabricator-Stamps" header.
{F5411694}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T10448
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18991
Summary: Depends on D18983. Ref T13053. Adds a new Herald action to activate the "must encrypt" flag and drop mail content.
Test Plan:
- Created a new Herald rule:
{F5407075}
- Created a "dog task" (woof woof, unsecure) and a "duck task" (quack quack, secure).
- Viewed mail for both in `bin/mail` and web UI, saw appropriate security/encryption behavior.
- Viewed "Must Encrypt" in "Headers" tab for the duck mail, saw why the mail was encrypted (link to Herald rule).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18984
Summary:
Ref T13057. This makes "reverts" syntax more visible and useful. In particular, you can now `Reverts Dxx` in a revision or commit, and `Reverts <hash>` from a revision.
When you do, the corresponding object will get a more-visible cross-reference marker in its timeline:
{F5405517}
From here, we can look at surfacing revert information more heavily, since we can now query it on revision/commit pages via edges.
Test Plan: Used "reverts <hash>" and "reverts <revision>" in Differential and Diffusion, got sensible results in the timeline.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13057
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18978
Summary: See PHI333. Some of the cleanup at the tail end of the bulk edit changes made "Assign To" stop working properly, since we don't strip the `array(...)` off the `array(PHID)` value we receive.
Test Plan:
- Used bulk editor to assign and unassign tasks (single value datasource).
- Used bulk editor to change projects (multi-value datasource).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18975
Summary:
Ref T13049. When stuff executes asynchronously on the bulk workflow it can be hard to inspect directly, and/or a pain to test because you have to go through a bunch of steps to run it again.
Make future work here easier by making export triggerable from the CLI. This makes it easy to repeat, inspect with `--trace`, profile with `--xprofile`, etc.
Test Plan:
- Ran several invalid commands, got sensible error messages.
- Ran some valid commands, got exported data.
- Used `--xprofile` to look at the profile for a 300MB dump of 100K tasks which took about 40 seconds to export. Nothing jumped out as sketchy to me -- CustomField wrangling is a little slow but most of the time looked like it was being spent legitimately.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18965
Summary: Depends on D18946. Ref T13051. Begins writing edge transactions as just a list of changed PHIDs.
Test Plan: Added, edited, and removed projects. Reviewed transaction record and database. Saw no user-facing changes but a far more compact database representation.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13051
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18947
Summary:
Ref T13051. This puts a translation layer between the raw edge data in the transaction table and the UI that uses it.
The intent is to start writing new, more compact data soon. This class give us a consistent API for interacting with either the new or old data format, so we don't have to migrate everything upfront.
Test Plan: Browsed around, saw existing edge transactions render properly in transactions and feed. Added and removed subscribers and projects, saw good transaction rendering.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13051
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18946
Summary:
See PHI307. Currently, when reviews undraft, we retroactively add in older activity to the mail ("alice created this revision...").
However, we don't add that activity to the mail tags, so the relevant tags (like "revision created") are dropped forever.
Instead, use the same set of transactions for both mail body and mail tag construction.
This should be obsoleted in the relatively near future by T10448, but it's a better/more correct behavior in general and we probably can't get rid of tags completely for a while.
Test Plan:
Applied patch, created a revision with builds, saw it auto-undraft after builds finished. Used `bin/mail list-outbound` and `bin/mail show-outbound` to see the mail. Verified that it included retroactive text ("created this revision") AND retroactive tags.
Note that the tag for "A new revision is created" is `DifferentialTransaction::MAILTAG_REVIEW_REQUEST` with literal value `differential-review-request`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18941
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: 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:
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. 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. Custom field transactions work somewhat unusually: the values sometimes need to be encoded. We currently do not apply this encoding correctly via Conduit.
For example, setting some custom PHID field to `["PHID-X-Y"]` fails with a bunch of JSON errors.
Add an extra hook callback so that EditTypes can apply processing to transaction values, then apply the correct CustomField processing.
This only affects Conduit. In a future diff, this also allows bulk edit of custom fields to work correctly.
Test Plan: Added a custom field to Maniphest with a list of projects. Used Conduit to bulk edit it (which now works, but did not before). Used the web UI to bulk edit it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18876
Summary:
Ref T13025. Currently, the bulk editor takes an HTTP request and emits a list of "raw" transactions (simple dictionaries). This goes into the job queue, and the background job builds a real transaction.
However, the logic to turn an HTTP request into a raw transaction is ending up with some duplication, since we generally already have logic to turn an HTTP request into a full object.
Instead: build real objects first, then serialize them to dictionaries. Send those to the job queue, rebuild them into objects again, and we end up in the same spot with a little less code duplication.
Finally, delete the mostly-copied code.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to add comments, projects, and rename tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18875
Summary:
Ref T13025. See PHI173. This supports the "Assign to" field in the new editor.
This is very slightly funky: to unassign tasks, you need to leave the field blank. I have half a diff to fix this, but the way the `none()` token works in the default datasource is odd so it needs a separate datasource. I'm punting on this for now since it works, at least, and isn't //completely// unreasonable.
This also simplifies some EditEngine stuff a little. Notably:
- I reorganized EditType construction slightly so subclasses can copy/paste a little bit less.
- EditType had `field` and `editField` properties which had the same values. I canonicalized on `editField` and made this value set a little more automatically.
Test Plan: Used bulk editor to reassign some tasks. By leaving the field blank, unassigned tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18874
Summary: Depends on D18867. Ref T13025. Fixes T8740. Rebuilds the tag/subscriber actions (add, remove, set) into the bulk editor.
Test Plan: Added, removed and set these values via bulk edit.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T8740
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18868
Summary:
Depends on D18866. Ref T13025. Fixes T12415. This makes the old "Add Comment" action work, and adds support for a new "Set description to" action (possibly, I could imagine "append description" being useful some day, maybe).
The implementation is just a `<textarea />`, not a whole fancy remarkup box with `[Bold] [Italic] ...` buttons, preview, typeaheads, etc. It would be nice to enrich this eventually but doing the rendering in pure JS is currently very involved.
This requires a little bit of gymnastics to get the transaction populated properly, and adds some extra validation since we need some code there anyway.
Test Plan:
- Changed the description of a task via bulk editor.
- Added a comment to a task via bulk editor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T12415
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18867
Summary: Depends on D18864. Ref T13025. Adds bulk edit support back for "status" and "priority" using `<select />` controls.
Test Plan:
Used bulk editor to change status and priority for tasks.
{F5374436}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18866
Summary:
Depends on D18862. See PHI173. Ref T13025. Fixes T10005. This redefines bulk edits in terms of EditEngine fields, rather than hard-coding the whole thing.
Only text fields -- and, specifically, only the "Title" field -- are supported after this change. Followup changes will add more bulk edit parameter types and broader field support.
However, the title field now works without any Maniphest-specific code, outside of the small amount of binding code in the `ManiphestBulkEditor` subclass.
Test Plan: Used the bulk edit workflow to change the titles of tasks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10005
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18863
Summary:
Depends on D18806. Ref T13025. See PHI173. Currently, Maniphest bulk edits are processed by a Maniphest-specific worker. I want to replace this with a generic worker which can apply transactional edits to any object.
This implements a generic worker, although it has no callers yet. Future changes give it callers, and later remove the Maniphest-specific worker.
Test Plan: See next changes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18862
Summary:
Depends on D18805. Ref T13025. Fixes T10268.
Instead of using a list of IDs for the bulk editor, power it with SearchEngine queries. This gives us the full power of SearchEngine and lets us use a query key instead of a list of 20,000 IDs to avoid issues with URL lengths.
Also, split it into a base `BulkEngine` and per-application subclasses. This moves us toward T10005 and universal support for bulk operations.
Also:
- Renames most of "batch" to "bulk": we're curently inconsitent about this, I like "bulk" better since I think it's more clear if you don't regularly interact with `.bat` files, and newer stuff mostly uses "bulk".
- When objects in the result set can't be edited because you don't have permission, show the status more clearly.
This probably breaks some stuff a bit since I refactored so heavily, but it seems mostly OK from poking around. I'll clean up anything I missed in followups to deal with remaining items on T13025.
Test Plan:
{F5302300}
- Bulk edited from Maniphest.
- Bulk edited from a workboard (no more giant `?ids=....` in the URL).
- Hit most of the error conditions, I think?
- Clicked the "Cancel" button.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13025, T10268
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18806
Summary:
Depends on D18845. See PHI243 for context and more details.
Briefly, some objects need a "type" transaction (or something similar) very early on, and we can't generate their fields until we know the object type. Drydock blueprints are an example: a blueprint's fields depend on the blueprint's type.
In web interfaces, the workflow just forces the user to select a type first. For Conduit workflows, I think the cleanest approach is to proactively extract and apply type information before processing the request. This will make the implementation a little messier, but the API cleaner.
An alternative is to add more fields to the API, like a "type" field. This makes the implementation cleaner, but the API messier. I think we're better off favoring a cleaner API here.
This change just makes it possible for `DrydockBlueprintEditEngine` to look at the incoming transactions and extract a "type"; it doesn't actually change any behavior.
Test Plan: Performed edits via API, but this change doesn't alter any behavior.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18847
Summary:
Depends on D18851. Ref T13035. After D18819, revision creation transactions may be split into two groups (if prototypes are enabled).
This split means we have two workers. The first worker doesn't publish feed stories or mail; the second one does.
Currently, both workers call `shouldPublishFeedStory()` before they queue, and then again after the daemons pull them out of the queue. However, the answer to this question can change.
Specifically, this happens:
- `arc` creates a revision.
- The first transaction group applies, creating the revision as a draft, and returns `false` from `shouldPublishFeedStory()`, and does not generate related PHIDs. It queues a daemon to send mail, expecting it not to publish a feed story.
- The second transaction group applies, promoting the revision to "needs review". Since the revision has promoted, `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true. This editor generates related PHIDs and queues a daemon task, expecting it to send mail / publish feed.
- A few milliseconds pass.
- The first job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. It does not have any feed metadata because the object wasn't publishable when the job was queued -- but `shouldPublishFeedStory()` now returns true, so it tries to publish a story without any metadata available. Slightly bad stuff happens (see below).
- The second job gets pulled out of the daemon queue and worked on. This one has metadata and works fine.
The "slightly bad stuff" is that we publish an empty feed story with no references to any objects, then try to push it to hooks and other listeners. Since it doesn't have any references, it fails to load during the "push to external listeners" phase.
This is harmless but clutters the log and doesn't help anything.
Instead, cache the state of "are we publishing a feed story for this object?" when we queue the worker so it can't race.
Test Plan:
- Enabled prototypes.
- Disabled all Herald triggers for Harbormaster build plans.
- Ran `bin/phd debug task` in one window.
- Created a revision in a separate window.
- Before patch: saw "unable to load feed story" errors in the daemon log.
- After patch: no more "unable to load feed story" errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18852
Summary:
Ref: https://admin.phacility.com/PHI243
Since our use case primarily focuses on transaction editing, this patch implements the `drydock.blueprint.edit` api method with the understanding that:
a) this is a work in progress
b) object editing is supported, but object creation is not yet implemented
Test Plan:
* updated existing blueprints via Conduit UI
* regression tested `maniphest.edit` by creating new and updating existing tasks
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: Korvin, yelirekim, jcox
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18822
Summary:
Fixes T13027. Ref T2543. When revisions promote from "Draft" because builds finish or no builds are configured, the status currently switches from "Draft" to "Needs Review" without re-running Herald.
This means that some rules -- notably, "Send me an email" rules -- don't fire as soon as they should.
Instead of applying this promotion in a hacky way inline, queue it and apply it normally in a second edit, after the current group finishes.
Test Plan:
- Created a revision, reviewed Herald transcripts.
- Saw three Herald passes:
- First pass (revision creation) triggered builds and no email.
- Second pass (builds finished) did not trigger builds (no update) and did not trigger email (revision still a draft).
- Third pass (after promotion out of 'draft') did not trigger builds (no update) but did trigger email (revision no longer a draft).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13027, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18819
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/daemons-tasks-crashing-in-a-loop-during-reindex/506/1>. Some object types (for example, Passphrase Credentials) support indexing but not commenting.
Make `withComments(...)` work properly if the transaction type does not support comments.
Test Plan:
Indexed a credential (no comments) and a revision (comments) with `bin/search index --trace ...`.
Before, credential fataled.
After, credetial succeeds, and skips the transaction query.
Before and after, the revision queries the transaction table.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18667
Summary:
Ref T12997. Although we can't query by transaction type (since we can't easily enumerate all possible types which may have comments -- inline types may also have comments), we //can// just check if there's a comment row or not.
This reduces the amount of garbage we need to load to rebuild indexes for unusual objects with hundreds and hundreds of mentions.
Test Plan:
- Used batch editor to mention a task 700 times.
- Indexed it before and after this change, saw index time drop from {nav 1600ms > 160ms}.
- Made some new comments on it, verified that they still indexed/queried properly.
- Browsed around, made normal transactions, made inline comments.
- Added a unique word to an inline comment, indexed revision, searched for word, found revision.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12997
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18660
Summary:
Ref T2543. This doesn't stand alone since mail still goes out normally, but gets this piece working: new revisions start as "Draft", then after updates if there are no builds they go into "Needs Review".
This should work in general because builds update revisions when they complete, to publish a "Harbormaster finished build yada yada" transaction. So either we'll un-draft immediately, or un-draft after the last build finishes.
I'll hold this until the mail and some other stuff (like UI hints) are in slightly better shape since I think it's probably too rough on its own.
Test Plan: Created revisions locally, saw them un-draft after builds.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18628
Summary: This simplifies EditEngine pages in general by removing the dual header, and extending to allow setting of a custom PHUIHeaderView if needed (like settings).
Test Plan:
Review all settings pages, review task, project pages. This should all be fine, but is a big change maybe some layouts I'm not considering. Tested these all mobile, destkop as well.
{F5166181}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Spies: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18527
Summary:
Ref T12819. Some of the extensions "enrich" the document (adding more fields or relationships), while others "index" it (insert it into some kind of index for later searching).
Currently, these are all muddled under a single "index" phase. However, the Ferret extension cares about fields and relationships which other extensions may add.
Split this into two phases: "enrich" adds fields and relationships so other extensions can read them later if they want. "Index" happens after the document is built and has all the fields and relationships.
The specific problem this solves is that comments may not have been added to the document when the Ferret extension runs. By moving them to the "enrich" phase, the Ferret engine will be able to see and index comments.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/search index ...`, grepped for `indexFulltextDocument`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12819
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18513
Summary:
Ref T2543. When called from the UI to build the dropdown, there's no Editor, since we aren't actually in an edit flow.
This logic worked for actually performing the edits, just not for getting the option into the dropdown.
Test Plan: Used the dropdown to close an "Accepted" revision which I authored.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18490
Summary:
Ref T5873. This provides paths and line numbers for inline comments.
This is a touch hacky but I was able to keep it mostly under control.
Test Plan:
- Made inline comments.
- Called API, got path/line information.
{F5120157}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18469
Summary: Minor cleanup, this logic can be simpler. Instead of special-casing inlines as having an effect if the have a comment, just consider any transaction with a comment to have an effect. I'm fairly certain this is always true.
Test Plan: Made inlines, tried to submit empty comments. Behavior unchanged.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18468
Summary:
Ref T5873. See PHI14. I don't want to just expose internal transaction data to Conduit by default, since it's often: unstable, unusable, sensitive, or some combination of the three.
Instead, let ModularTransactions opt in to providing additional data to Conduit, similar to other infrastructure. If a transaction doesn't, the API returns an empty skeleton for it. This is generally fine since most transactions have no real use cases, and I think we can fill them in as we go.
This also probably builds toward T5726, which would likely use the same format, and perhaps simply not publish stuff which did not opt in.
This doesn't actually cover "comment" or "inline comment", which are presumably what PHI14 is after, since neither is modular. I'll probably just put a hack in place for this until they can modularize since I suspect modularizing them here is difficult.
Test Plan: Ran `transaction.search` on a revision, saw some transactions (title and status transactions) populate with values.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18467
Summary:
Ref T5873. See PHI14. This does the basics that are shared across everything (IDs, PHIDs, dates, comments).
It doesn't do types (I think I don't necessarily want to expose internal types over the API?) or transaction-specific data.
In the next change, I'm going to add ways to let ModularTransactions "opt-in" to providing more data to Conduit. I'll use this to flesh out the actual desired transaction types (comments, presumably inline comments) and likely leave the rest as skeletons for now until use cases arise so we don't create a backward compatibility issue (or a security issue!) by exposing tons of internal stuff as public-facing API.
Test Plan:
Ran queries, used paging. Retrieved an edited, deleted, and normal comment.
{F5120060}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T5873
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18466
Summary: Simplifies the page, adds base support for PHUITwoColumn fixed from Instances (which I'll delete css there).
Test Plan:
click on every settings page, UI seems in tact, check mobile, desktop, mobile menus.
{F5102572}
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18436
Summary: Moves Settings to use a normal side navigation vs. a two column side navigation. It also updates Edit Engine to do the same, but I don't think there are other callsites. Added a consistent header for better clarification if you were editng your settings, global settings, or a bot's settings.
Test Plan: Test each page on a personal account, create global settings, test each page there, create a bot account, and test each page on the bot account. Anything else?
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18342
Summary: Cursory research indicates that "login" is a noun, referring to a form, and "log in" is a verb, referring to the action of logging in. I went though every instances of 'login' I could find and tried to clarify all this language. Also, we have "Phabricator" on the registration for like 4-5 times, which is a bit verbose, so I tried to simplify that language as well.
Test Plan: Tested logging in and logging out. Pages feel simpler.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18322
Summary:
Ref T12124. After D18134 we accept either "25" or "low" via HTTP parameters and when the field renders as a control, but if the form has a default value for the field but locks or hides it we don't actually run through that logic.
Canonicalize both when rendering the control and when using a raw saved default value.
Test Plan:
- Created a form with "Priority: Low".
- Hid the "Priority" field.
- Before patch: Tried to create a task, was rebuffed with a (now verbose and helpful, after D18135) error.
- Applied patch: things worked.
Reviewers: chad, amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18142
