Summary: Depends on D20038. Ref T13231. Although I planned to keep this out of the upstream (see T13229) it ended up having enough pieces that I imagine it may need more fixes/updates than we can reasonably manage by copy/pasting stuff around. Until T5055, we don't really have good tools for managing this. Make my life easier by just upstreaming this.
Test Plan: See T13231 for a bunch of workflow discussion.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13231
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20039
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI683. Currently, you can "Change subtype..." via Conduit and the bulk editor, but not via the comment action stack or edit forms.
In PHI683 an install is doing this often enough that they'd like it to become a first-class action. I've generally been cautious about pushing this action to become a first-class action (there are some inevitable rough edges and I don't want to add too much complexity if there isn't a use case for it) but since we have evidence that users would find it useful and nothing has exploded yet, I'm comfortable taking another step forward.
Currently, `EditEngine` has this sort of weird `setIsConduitOnly()` method. This actually means more like "this doesn't show up on forms". Make it better align with that. In particular, a "conduit only" field can already show up in the bulk editor, which is goofy. Change this to `setIsFormField()` and convert/simplify existing callsites.
Test Plan:
There are a lot of ways to reach EditEngine so this probably isn't entirely exhaustive, but I think I got pretty much anything which is likely to break:
- Searched for `setIsConduitOnly()` and `getIsConduitOnly()`, converted all callsites to `setIsFormField()`.
- Searched for `setIsLockable()`, `setIsReorderable()` and `setIsDefaultable()` and aligned these calls to intent where applicable.
- Created an Almanac binding.
- Edited an Almanac binding.
- Created an Almanac service.
- Edited an Almanac service.
- Edited a binding property.
- Deleted a binding property.
- Created and edited a badge.
- Awarded and revoked a badge.
- Created and edited an event.
- Made an event recurring.
- Created and edited a Conpherence thread.
- Edited and updated the diff for a revision.
- Created and edited a repository.
- Created and disabled repository URIs.
- Created and edited a blueprint.
- Created and edited tasks.
- Created a paste, edited/archived a paste.
- Created/edited/archived a package.
- Created/edited a project.
- Made comments.
- Moved tasks on workboards via comment action stack.
- Changed task subtype via comment action stack.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19842
Summary:
See PHI975. Ref T13216. Ref T2543. Previously, see D19204 and PHI433.
When you're acting on a draft revision, we change the button text to "Submit Quietly" as a hint that your actions don't generate notifications yet.
However, this isn't accurate when one of your actions is "Request Review", which causes the revision to publish.
Allow actions to override the submit button text, and make the "Request Review" action change the button text to "Publish Revision".
The alternative change I considered was to remove the word "Quietly" in all cases.
I'm not //thrilled// about how complex this change is to adjust one word, but the various pieces are all fairly clean individually. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to use it for anything else, but I do suspect that the word "Quietly" was the change in D19204 with the largest effect by far (see T10000).
Test Plan:
- Created a draft revision. Saw "Submit Quietly" text.
- Added a "Request Review" action, saw it change to "Publish Revision".
- Reloaded page, saw stack saved and "Publish Revision".
- Removed action, saw "Submit Quietly".
- Repeated on a non-draft revision, button stayed put as "Submit".
- Submitted the various actions, saw them have the desired effects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216, T2543
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19810
Summary:
See PHI251. Ref T13137.
- Replace the perplexing text box with a checkbox that explains what it does.
- Mention this feature in the documentation.
Test Plan:
- Clicked/unclicked checkbox.
- Read documentation.
- Used an existing checkbox control in Slowvote to make sure I didn't break it.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13137
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19433
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/hidden-description-field-in-maniphest-task-breaks-form/1432>.
If you hide the "Description" field in Maniphest, we still try to render a remarkup preview for it. This causes a JS error and a nonfunctional element on the page.
Instead, hide the preview panel if the field has been locked or hidden.
Test Plan:
- Hid the field, loaded the form, no more preview panel / JS error.
- Used a normal form with the field visible, saw a normal preview.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19432
Summary: Depends on D19337. Ref T13120. Ref T12414. These are slightly more substantive than namespace/network, but pretty much standard fare.
Test Plan:
- Searched for interfaces with "almanac.interface.search".
- Created and edited interfaces with "almanac.interface.edit".
- Created and edited interfaces with web UI since some stuff got tweaked.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13120, T12414
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19338
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: 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. 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:
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
Summary:
Ref T12124. This is a fairly narrow fix for existing saved EditEngine forms with a default priority value.
These saved forms have a numeric (or probably "string-numeric") default value, like "50". They lost their meaning after D18111, when "50" no longer appears in the dropdown. Instead, these forms all select the highest available priority.
At time of writing, this form was broken on this install, for example:
> https://secure.phabricator.com/transactions/editengine/maniphest.task/view/13/
Additionally, `/task/edit/form/123/?priority=...` (for templating forms) stopped working with `priority=50`. This isn't nearly as important, but a larger and more sudden compatiblity break than we need to make.
Add support for an "alias map" on `<select />` controls, so if the value comes in with something we don't recognize we'll treat it like some other value. Then alias all the numeric constants -- and other keywords -- to the right constants.
This ended up only affecting the `<select />` control in the web UI.
Test Plan:
- On `stable`, created a form with "Priority: Low".
- Before patch: form has "Priority: Unbreak Now!" on `master`.
- After patch: form has "Priority: Low" again.
- Used `?priority=25`, `?priority=wish`, `?priority=wishlist` to template forms: all forms worked.
Reviewers: amckinley, chad
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12124
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18134
Summary:
Ref T12271. Currenty, when you "Accept" a revision, you always accept it for all reviewers you have authority over.
There are some situations where communication can be more clear if users can accept as only themselves, or for only some packages, etc. T12271 discusses some of these use cases in more depth.
Instead of making "Accept" a blanket action, default it to doing what it does now but let the user uncheck reviewers.
In cases where project/package reviewers aren't in use, this doesn't change anything.
For now, "reject" still acts the old way (reject everything). We could make that use checkboxes too, but I'm not sure there's as much of a use case for it, and I generally want users who are blocking stuff to have more direct accountability in a product sense.
Test Plan:
- Accepted normally.
- Accepted a subset.
- Tried to accept none.
- Tried to accept bogus reviewers.
- Accepted with myself not a reviewer
- Accepted with only one reviewer (just got normal "this will be accepted" text).
{F4251255}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12271
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17533
Summary:
Ref T12335. Fixes T11207. Edit-like interactions which are not performed via "Edit <object>" are a bit of a grey area, policy-wise.
For example, you can correctly do these things to an object you can't edit:
- Comment on it.
- Award tokens.
- Subscribe or unsubscribe.
- Subscribe other users by mentioning them.
- Perform review.
- Perform audit.
- (Maybe some other stuff.)
These behaviors are all desirable and correct. But, particularly now that we offer stacked actions, you can do a bunch of other stuff which you shouldn't really be able to, like changing the status and priority of tasks you can't edit, as long as you submit the change via the comment form.
(Before the advent of stacked actions there were fewer things you could do via the comment form, and more of them were very "grey area", especially since "Change Subscribers" was just "Add Subscribers", which you can do via mentions.)
This isn't too much of a problem in practice because we won't //show// you those actions if the edit form you'd end up on doesn't have those fields. So on intalls like ours where we've created simple + advanced flows, users who shouldn't be changing task priorities generally don't see an option to do so, even though they technically could if they mucked with the HTML.
Change this behavior to be more strict: unless an action explicitly says that it doesn't need edit permission (comment, review, audit) don't show it to users who don't have edit permission and don't let them take the action.
Test Plan:
- As a user who could not edit a task, tried to change status via comment form; received policy exception.
- As a user who could not edit a task, viewed a comment form: no actions available (just "comment").
- As a user who could not edit a revision, viewed a revision form: only "review" actions available (accept, resign, etc).
- Viewed a commit form but these are kind of moot because there's no separate edit permission.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12335, T11207
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17452
Summary:
Ref T11114. When a user selects "Accept", and then selects "Reject", remove the "Accept". It does not make sense to both accept and reject a revision.
For now, every one of the "actions" conflicts: accept, reject, resign, claim, close, commandeer, etc, etc. I couldn't come up with any combinations that it seems like users are reasonably likely to want to try, and we haven't received combo-action requests in the past that I can recall.
Test Plan:
- Selected "Accept", then selected "Reject". One replaced the other.
- Selected "Accept", then selected "Change Subscribers". Both co-existed happily.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17132
Summary:
Ref T11114. Differential has more actions than it once did, and may have further actions in the future.
Make this dropdown a little easier to parse by grouping similar types of actions, like "Accept" and "Reject".
(The action order still needs to be tweaked a bit.)
Test Plan: {F2274526}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: eadler
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17114
Summary: Ref T11114. This begins restoring comment actions to Differential, but on top of EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F2263148}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17107
Summary: Ref T11114. Much of this is around making the "comment-while-updating" flow work correctly.
Test Plan:
- Created new diffs by copy/pasting, then:
- used one to create a new revision;
- used one to update an existing revision, with a comment.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11114
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17053
Summary:
This feels a little cleaner:
- Clean up transaction log a bit.
- Use a checkbox instead of a two-option dropdown.
This is a little messy because the browser doesn't send anything if the user submits a form with an un-clicked checkbox.
We now send a dummy value ("Hey, there's definitely a checkbox in this form!") so the server can figure out what to do.
Test Plan:
- Edited all-dayness of an event.
- Viewed transaction log.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16776
Summary:
This fixes the permissions issue with D16750, which is actually not really a permissions issue, exactly.
This is the only place anywhere that we use a tokenizer field //and// give it a default value which is not the same as the object value (when creating a merchant, we default it to the viewer).
In other cases (like Maniphest) we avoid this because you can edit the form to have defaults, which would collide with whatever default we provide. Some disucssion in T10222.
Since we aren't going to let you edit these forms for the forseeable future, this behavior is reasonable here though.
However, it triggered a sort-of-bug related to conflict detection for these fields (see T4768). These fields actually have two values: a hidden "initial" value, and a visible edited value.
When you submit the form, we compute your edit by comparing the edited value to the initial value, then applying adds/removes, instead of just saying "set value equal to new value". This prevents issues when two people edit at the same time and both make changes to the field.
In this case, the initial value was being set to the display value, so the field would say "Value: [(alincoln x)]" but internally have that as the intitial value, too. When you submitted, it would see "you didn't change anything", and thus not add any members.
So the viewer wouldn't actually be added as a member, then the policy check would correctly fail.
Note that there are still some policy issues here (you can remove yourself from a Merchant and lock yourself out) but they fall into the realm of stuff discussed in D16677.
Test Plan: Created a merchant account with D16750 applied.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16764
Summary: Ref T10747. This barely works, but can technically import some event data.
Test Plan: Used import flow to import a ".ics" document.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10747
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16699
Summary:
Ref T11326. When an event is all-day, hide the time controls for the start/end dates. These aren't used and aren't helpful/useful.
This got a little more complicated than it used to be because EditEngine forms may have only some of these controls present.
Test Plan: Edited an all-day event; edited a normal event; swapped an event between normal and all-day.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11326
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16327
Summary: Ref T9275. This gets things roughly into shape for a cutover to EditEngine, mostly by fixing some problems with "recurrence end date" not being nullable while editing events.
Test Plan: Edited events with EditPro controller, nothing was obviously broken.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9275
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16282
Summary:
Ref T9275. This still has a number of rough edges and other minor problems (no JS on the controls, some date handling control bugs) but I'll smooth those over in future changes.
It does make all the editable transaction types available from EditEngine, technically speaking.
Test Plan: Created and edited events with the "pro" controller, which mostly worked.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9275
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16281
Summary: Fixes T10952. Fixes T10930. I didn't implement this method correctly when I expanded this field for repositories.
Test Plan: Edited a paste without warnings.
Reviewers: avivey, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10930, T10952
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15892
Summary: Ref T10923. This provides a little guidance about hosted vs observed, and points at the `diffusion.ssh-*` options.
Test Plan: Poked around in the web UI, saw useful guidance.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10923
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15872
Summary: Ref T10748. This brings the "Actions" items (publish/notify + autoclose enabled) into the new UI.
Test Plan:
- Edited this stuff via EditEngine and Conduit.
- Viewed via new Manage UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10748
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15811
Summary: Ref T10748. Makes a "Branches" panel, enables these transactions in the EditEngine.
Test Plan:
- Edited via EditEngine + Conduit.
- Viewed via manage UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10748
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15809
Summary: Ref T10748. Brings this forward in the UI and EditEngine.
Test Plan:
- Edited via Conduit.
- Viewed via Manage UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10748
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15805
Summary: Fixes T10684. Fixes T10520. This primarily implements a date/epoch field, and then does a bunch of standard plumbing.
Test Plan:
- Created countdowns.
- Edited countdowns.
- Used HTTP prefilling.
- Created a countdown ending on "Christmas Morning", etc.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10520, T10684
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15655
Summary:
Ref T6027. Normally, actions use the same order as the form, but in some cases (like moving stuff on workboards) it makes sense to reorder them explicitly.
Pin "Move on board" near the bottom, and "projects/subscribers" at the bottom. I think these are generally reasonable rules in all cases.
Test Plan: Opened menu, saw slightly better action order.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6027
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15639
Summary:
Ref T6027. Try this out and see how it feels? Clear issues:
- This definitely shouldn't be at the top.
- You should probably be able to select it multiple times?
- Some of the "which columns show up" rules might need adjustment?
- Diamond marker maybe not great?
Not sure I love this but it doesn't feel //terrible//...
Test Plan: {F1207891}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6027
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15638
Summary: Ref T5214. Fixes T10486. Ref T6027. This exposes the `TYPE_COLUMNS` transaction in a usable way via API, and fixes the interactions via prefilling.
Test Plan:
- Created tasks directly into columns via API.
- Moved tasks between columns via API.
- Used `?column=...` to try to create a template task with valid and bogus column PHIDs.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: AmyLewis
Maniphest Tasks: T5214, T6027, T10486
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15636
Summary:
Ref T10457. Fixes T10024. This primarily just modernizes blueprints to use EditEngine.
This also fixes T10024, which was an issue with stored properties not being flagged correctly.
Also slightly improves typeaheads for blueprints (more information, disabled state).
Test Plan:
- Created and edited various types of blueprints.
- Set and removed limits.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10024, T10457
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15390
Summary:
Ref T4427.
- New config option for labels, enabling, etc., but no UI/niceness yet.
- When enabled, add a field.
- Allow nonnegative values, including fractional values.
- EditEngine is nice and Conduit / actions basically just work with a tiny bit of extra support code.
Test Plan:
- Edited points via "Edit".
- Edited points via Conduit.
- Edited points via stacked actions.
- Tried to set "zebra" points.
- Tried to set -1 points.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4427
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15220
Summary: Ref T10168. When we render this control, we currently don't put commas into the value correctly if there are multiple alternative hashtags.
Test Plan: Edited a project with multiple alternate hashtags. Before change: they all got smushed together. After change: properly comma-separated.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10168
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15045
Summary:
Ref T10054. This does a big chunk of the legwork to let users reconfigure profile menus (currently, just project menus).
This includes:
- Editing builtin items (e.g., you can rename the default items).
- Creating new items (for now, only links are available).
This does not yet include:
- Hiding items.
- Reordering items.
- Lots of fancy types of items (dashboards, etc).
- Any UI changes.
- Documentation (does feature: TODO link for documentation).
Test Plan:
{F1060695}
{F1060696}
{F1060697}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10054
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15010
Summary:
Fixes T10117.
- I accidentally broke setting `null` to unassign tasks at some point when I added richer validation.
- Raise a better error if the user passes junk.
Test Plan:
- Unassigned a task via API and web UI.
- Reassigned a task via API and web UI.
- Tried to do an invalid assign via API, got a sensible error.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10117
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14992
Summary:
Ref T9897. This one is a little more involved because of how getting a post on a blog works.
I also changed moving posts to be a real transaction (which shows up in history, now).
Test Plan: Created posts from web UI and conduit.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9897
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14902
Summary: Ref T10010. This is pretty straightforward with a couple of very minor new behaviors, like the icon selector edit field.
Test Plan:
- Created projects.
- Edited projects.
- Saw "Create Project" in quick create menu.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10010
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14896
Summary: Ref T10004. This primarily supports moving Phame to EditEngine.
Test Plan: {F1045166}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10004
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14887
Summary:
At least for now, the "Space" field is just a subfield of the "Visible To" field, so:
- it doesn't get any separate settings; and
- it always uses the "Visible To" settings.
Test Plan:
- Created a form with a hidden view policy field.
- Created stuff with no "you must pick a space" errors.
- Created stuff with a normal form.
- Prefilled "Space" on a noraml form.
- Verified that trying to prefill "Space" on a form with "Visible To" hidden does nothing.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14812
Summary:
Fixes T7661. Ref T9527.
When you create a task, especially with an EditEngine form, you currently get more noise than is useful. For example:
> alice created this task.
> alice changed the edit policy from "All Users" to "Community (Project)".
> alice added projects: Feature Request, Differential.
> alice added a subscriber: alice.
Transaction (1) is a little useful, since it saves us from a weird empty state and shows the object creation time.
Transaction (2) is totally useless (and even misleading) because that's the default policy for the form.
Transaction (3) isn't //completely// useless but isn't very interesting, and probably not worth the real-estate.
Transaction (4) is totally useless.
(These transactions are uniquely useless when creating objects -- when editing them later, they're fine.)
This adds two new rules to hide transactions:
- Hide transactions from object creation if the old value is empty (e.g., set title, set projects, set subscribers).
- Hide transactions from object creation if the old value is the same as the form default value (e.g., set policy to default, set priorities to default, set status to default).
NOTE: These rules also hide the "created this object" transaction, since it's really one of those transaction types in all cases. I want to keep that around in the long term, but just have it be a separate `TYPE_CREATE` action -- currently, it is this weird, inconsistent action where we pick some required field (like title) and special-case the rendering if the old value is `null`. So fixing that is a bit more involved. For now, I'm just dropping these transactions completely, but intend to restore them later.
Test Plan:
- Created objects.
- Usually saw no extra create transactions.
- Saw extra create transactions when making an important change away from form defaults (e.g., overriding form policy).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7661, T9527
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14810
Summary:
Ref T9964. Three goals here:
- Make it easier to supply Conduit documentation.
- Make automatic documentation for `*.edit` endpoints more complete, particularly for custom fields.
- Allow type resolution via Conduit types, so you can pass `["alincoln"]` to "subscribers" instead of needing to use PHIDs.
Test Plan:
- Viewed and used all search and edit endpoints, including custom fields.
- Used parameter type resolution to set subscribers to user "dog" instead of "PHID-USER-whatever".
- Viewed HTTP parameter documentation.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14796
