Summary: Provide an implementation for the `getName` method rather than automagically determining the application name.
Test Plan: Saw reasonable application names in the launcher.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10027
Summary: Ref T5655. Some discussion in D9839. Generally speaking, `Phabricator{$name}Application` is clearer than `PhabricatorApplication{$name}`.
Test Plan:
# Pinned and uninstalled some applications.
# Applied patch and performed migrations.
# Verified that the pinned applications were still pinned and that the uninstalled applications were still uninstalled.
# Performed a sanity check on the database contents.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: hach-que, epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9982
Summary: Ref T5655. The `PhabricatorDestructibleInterface` interface is misspelled as `PhabricatorDestructableInterface`. Fix the spelling mistake.
Test Plan: `grep`. Seeing as this interface is fairly recent, I don't expect that this would cause any widespread breakages.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T5655
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9988
Summary:
Ref T5245. These were a bad idea.
We no longer need actors for edge edits either, so remove those. Generally, edges have fit into the policy model as pure/low-level infrastructure, and they do not have any policy or capability information in and of themselves.
Test Plan: `grep`
Reviewers: chad, btrahan, joshuaspence
Reviewed By: joshuaspence
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5245
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9840
Summary: Ref T5179. Ref T4045. Ref T832. We can now write non-utf8 hunks into the database, so try to do more reasonable things with them in the UI.
Test Plan: (See screenshots...)
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T832, T4045, T5179
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9294
Summary:
Ref T4749. Ref T3265. Ref T4909. Several goals here:
- Move user destruction to the CLI to limit the power of rogue admins.
- Start consolidating all "destroy named object" scripts into a single UI, to make it easier to know how to destroy things.
- Structure object destruction so we can do a better and more automatic job of cleaning up transactions, edges, search indexes, etc.
- Log when we destroy objects so there's a record if data goes missing.
Test Plan: Used `bin/remove destroy` to destroy several users.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3265, T4749, T4909
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8940
Summary: Ref T4398. Prevent users from brute forcing multi-factor auth by rate limiting attempts. This slightly refines the rate limiting to allow callers to check for a rate limit without adding points, and gives users credit for successfully completing an auth workflow.
Test Plan: Tried to enter hisec with bad credentials 11 times in a row, got rate limited.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8911
Summary:
Ref T4371. Ref T4699. Fixes T3994.
Currently, we're very conservative about sending errors back to users. A concern I had about this was that mistakes could lead to email loops, massive amounts of email spam, etc. Because of this, I was pretty hesitant about replying to email with more email when I wrote this stuff.
However, this was a long time ago. We now have Message-ID deduplication, "X-Phabricator-Sent-This-Mail", generally better mail infrastructure, and rate limiting. Together, these mechanisms should reasonably prevent anything crazy (primarily, infinite email loops) from happening.
Thus:
- When we hit any processing error after receiving a mail, try to send the author a reply with details about what went wrong. These are limited to 6 per hour per address.
- Rewrite most of the errors to be more detailed and informative.
- Rewrite most of the errors in a user-facing voice ("You sent this mail..." instead of "This mail was sent..").
- Remove the redundant, less sophisticated code which does something similar in Differential.
Test Plan:
- Using `scripts/mail/mail_receiver.php`, artificially received a pile of mail.
- Hit a bunch of different errors.
- Saw reasonable error mail get sent to me.
- Saw other reasonable error mail get rate limited.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3994, T4371, T4699
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8692
Summary: I accidentally made these exceptionally ugly recently.
Test Plan: {F137411}
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: epriestley, chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8684
Summary:
This adds a system which basically keeps a record of recent actions, who took them, and how many "points" they were worth, like:
epriestley email.add 1 1233989813
epriestley email.add 1 1234298239
epriestley email.add 1 1238293981
We can use this to rate-limit actions by examining how many actions the user has taken in the past hour (i.e., their total score) and comparing that to an allowed limit.
One major thing I want to use this for is to limit the amount of error email we'll send to an email address. A big concern I have with sending more error email is that we'll end up in loops. We have some protections against this in headers already, but hard-limiting the system so it won't send more than a few errors to a particular address per hour should provide a reasonable secondary layer of protection.
This use case (where the "actor" needs to be an email address) is why the table uses strings + hashes instead of PHIDs. For external users, it might be appropriate to rate limit by cookies or IPs, too.
To prove it works, I rate limited adding email addresses. This is a very, very low-risk security thing where a user with an account can enumerate addresses (by checking if they get an error) and sort of spam/annoy people (by adding their address over and over again). Limiting them to 6 actions / hour should satisfy all real users while preventing these behaviors.
Test Plan:
This dialog is uggos but I'll fix that in a sec:
{F137406}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8683
Summary:
Fixes T4610. Open to suggestions, etc., if there's anything I'm missing.
Also:
- Moves these "system" endpoints into a real application.
- Makes `isUnlisted()` work a little more consistently.
Test Plan: Accessed `/robots.txt`, `/status/` and `/debug/`.
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: aran, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4610
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8532
Summary:
Currently, there's no easy way for me to tell a user "run this code from the webserver and tell me what it says". Sometimes installs can add new .php files to, e.g., `webroot/rsrc/`, but this is setup-dependent and not universal. Generally I resort to saying "put this into index.php", but that's error prone and not acceptable on active installs.
Add a "debug" controller so I can instead say "put this into support/debug.php, then visit /debug/".
Test Plan: Visited /debug/ with and without support/debug.php files. Visited /staus/.
Reviewers: vrana, btrahan
Reviewed By: vrana
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5212
