Summary:
Fixes T13461. Some applications provide hints about policy strength in the header, but these hints are inconsistent and somewhat confusing. They don't make much sense for modern objects with Custom Forms, which don't have a single "default" policy.
Remove this feature since it seems to be confusing things more than illuminating them.
Test Plan:
- Viewed various objects, no longer saw colored policy hints.
- Grepped for all removed symbols.
Maniphest Tasks: T13461
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20918
Summary: Ref T13411. When users click a link to explain a capability (like the policy header on many objects, or the link next to specific capabilities in "Applications", "Diffusion", etc), inline the full ruleset for the custom policy into the dialog if the object has a custom policy.
Test Plan: {F6856365}
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20805
Summary: Ref T13411. This pathway has an unused "icon" parameter with no callsites. Throw it away to ease refactoring.
Test Plan: Grepped for callsites, found none using this parameter.
Maniphest Tasks: T13411
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20803
Summary:
Fixes T13128. Ref PHI590. This is a rough-and-ready implementation of a new `PhabricatorPolicyCodex->compareToDefaultPolicy()` method that subclasses can override to handle special cases of policy defaults. Also implements a `PolicyCodex` for Phriction documents, because the default policy of a Phriction document is the policy of the root document.
I might break this change into two parts, one of which maintains the current behavior and another which implements `PhrictionDocumentPolicyCodex`.
Test Plan: Created some Phriction docs, fiddled with policies, observed expected colors in the header. Will test more comprehensively after review for basic reasonable-ness.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, swisspol
Maniphest Tasks: T13128
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19409
Summary: This spelling can definitely feel a little overplayed at times, but I still think it's a gold standard in spellings of "capabilities".
Test Plan: Felt old and uncool.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18215
Summary:
Ref T11853. My CSS change for the more enormous policy dialog was a little too broad, and affected the "You shall not pass!" dialog too.
Narrow the scope of the CSS rules.
Also add a missing "." that I caught.
Test Plan:
- Looked at policy exception dialogs.
- Looked at policy explanation dialogs.
- Looked at the end of that sentence.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11853
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16841
Summary:
This has been replaced by `PolicyCodex` after D16830. Also:
- Rebuild Celerity map to fix grumpy unit test.
- Fix one issue on the policy exception workflow to accommodate the new code.
Test Plan:
- `arc unit --everything`
- Viewed policy explanations.
- Viewed policy errors.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: hach-que, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16831
Summary:
Fixes T11836. See some prior discussion in T8376#120613.
The policy hint in headers in the UI is not exhaustive, and can not reasonably be exhaustive. For example, on a revision, it may say "All Users", but really mean "All users who can see the space this object is in and the repository it belongs to, plus the revision author and reviewers".
These rules are explained if you click (and, often, in the documentation), but "All Users" is still at least somewhat misleading.
I don't think there's any perfect solution here that balances the needs of both new and experienced users perfectly, but this change tries to do a bit better about avoiding cases where we say something very open (like "All Users") when the real policy is not very open.
Specifically, I've made these changes to the header:
- Spaces are now listed in the tag, so it will say `(S3 > All Users)` instead of `(All Users)`. They're already listed in the header, this just makes it more explicit that Spaces are a policy container and part of the view policy.
- Extended policy objects are now listed in the tag, so it will say `(S3 > rARC > All Users)` for a revision in the Arcanist repository which is also in Space 3.
- Objects can now provide a "Policy Codex", which is an object that represents a rulebook of more sophisticated policy descriptions. This codex can replace the tag with something else.
- Imported calendar events now say "Uses Import Policy" instead of, e.g., "All Users".
I've made these changes to the policy dialog:
- Split it into more visually separate sections.
- Added an explicit section for extended policies ("You must also have access to these other objects: ...").
- Broken the object policy rules into a "Special Rules" section (for rules like "you can only see a revision if you can see the repository it is part of") and an "Object Policy" section (for the actual object policy).
- Tried to make it a little more readable?
- The new policy dialogs are great to curl up with in front of a fire with a nice cup of cocoa.
I've made these changes to infrastructure:
- Implementing `PhabricatorPolicyInterface` no longer requires you to implement `describeAutomaticCapability()`.
- Instead, implement `PhabricatorPolicyCodexInterface` and return a `PhabricatorPolicyCodex` object.
- This "codex" is a policy rulebook which can set all the policy icons, labels, colors, rules, etc., to properly explain complex policies.
- Broadly, the old method was usually either not useful (most objects have no special rules) or not powerful enough (objects with special rules often need to do more in order to explain them).
Test Plan:
{F1912860}
{F1912861}
{F1912862}
{F1912863}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: avivey
Maniphest Tasks: T11836
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16830
Summary: Ref T8099, Missed this when testing Spaces. Adds proper list formatting.
Test Plan: Review Policy when object is higher or lower than default.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T8099
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13478
Summary: Ref T8099, Cleans up UI issues, adds `appendList` and renders lists and paragraphs with Remarkup UI.
Test Plan: Test Policy Dialogs, other various dialogs.
Reviewers: btrahan, epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T8099
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13463
Summary:
Fixes T6787. I'm kind of cheating a little bit here by not unifying default selection with `initializeNew(...)` methods, but I figure we can let this settle for a bit and then go do that later. It's pretty minor.
Since we're not doing templates I kind of want to swap the `'template'` key to `'type'` so maybe I'll do that too at some point.
@chad, freel free to change these, I was just trying to make them pretty obvious. I //do// think it's good for them to stand out, but my approach is probably a bit inconsistent/heavy-handed in the new design.
Test Plan:
{F525024}
{F525025}
{F525026}
{F525027}
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: johnny-bit, joshuaspence, chad, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6787
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13387
Summary:
Ref T8449. Before we show a policy hint in the header of an object, compare it to the space policy (if one exists).
If the space policy is strictly stronger (more restrictive -- for example, the Space policy is 'members of X', and the object policy is 'public'), show the space policy instead.
See discussion on T8376.
Test Plan: {F509126}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8449
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13328
Summary: Ref T8449. When an object is in a space, explain that clearly in the policy description dialog.
Test Plan: {F496126}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T8449
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13264
Summary:
Ref T1049. I don't really want to sink too much time into this right now, but a seemingly reasonable architecture came to me in a dream. Here's a high-level overview of how things fit together:
- **"Build"**: In Harbormaster, "build" means any process we want to run against a working copy. It might actually be building an executable, but it might also be running lint, running unit tests, generating documentation, generating symbols, running a deploy, setting up a sandcastle, etc.
- `HarbormasterBuildable`: A "buildable" is some piece of code which build operations can run on. Generally, this is either a Differential diff or a Diffusion commit. The Buildable class just wraps those objects and provides a layer of abstraction. Currently, you can manually create a buildable from a commit. In the future, this will be done automatically.
- `HarbormasterBuildStep`: A "build step" is an individual build operation, like "run lint", "run unit", "build docs", etc. The step defines how to perform the operation (for example, "run unit tests by executing 'arc unit'"). In this diff, this barely exists.
- `HarbormasterBuildPlan`: This glues together build steps into groups or sequences. For example, you might want to "run unit", and then "deploy" if the tests pass. You can create a build plan which says "run step "unit tests", then run step "deploy" on success" or whatever. In the future, these will also contain triggers/conditions ("Automatically run this build plan against every commit") and probably be able to define failure actions ("If this plan fails, send someone an email"). Because build plans will run commands, only administrators can manage them.
- `HarbormasterBuild`: This is the concrete result of running a `BuildPlan` against a `Buildable`. It tracks the build status and collects results, so you can see if the build is running/successful/failed. A `Buildable` may have several `Build`s, because you can execute more than one `BuildPlan` against it. For example, you might have a "documentation" build plan which you run continuously against HEAD, but a "unit" build plan which you want to run against every commit.
- `HarbormasterBuildTarget`: This is the concrete result of running a `BuildStep` against a `Buildable`. These are children of `Build`. A step might be able to produce multiple targets, but generally this is something like "Unit Tests" or "Lint" and has an overall status, so you can see at a glance that unit tests were fine but lint had some issues.
- `HarbormasterBuildItem`: An optional subitem for a target. For lint, this might be an individual file. For unit tests, an individual test. For normal builds, an executable. For deploys, a server. For documentation generation, there might just not be subitems.
- `HarbormasterBuildLog`: Provides extra information, like command/execution transcripts. This is where stdout/stderr will get dumped, and general details and other messages.
- `HarbormasterBuildArtifact`: Stores side effects or results from build steps. For example, something which builds a binary might put the binary in "Files" and then put its PHID here. Unit tests might put coverage information here. Generally, any build step which produces some high-level output object can use this table to record its existence.
This diff implements almost nothing and does nothing useful, but puts most of these object relationships in place. The two major things you can't easily do with these objects are:
1) Run arbitrary cron jobs. Jenkins does this, but it feels tacked on and I don't know of anyone using it for that. We could create fake Buildables to get a similar effect, but if we need to do this I'd rather do it elsewhere in general. Build and cron/service/monitoring feel like pretty different problems to me.
2) Run parameterized/matrix steps (maybe?). Bamboo has this plan/stage/task/job breakdown where a build step can generate a zillion actual jobs, like "build client on x86", "build server on x86", "build client on ARM", "build server on ARM", etc. We can sort of do this by having a Step map to multiple Targets, but I haven't really thought about it too much and it may end up being not-great. I'd guess we have like an 80% chance of getting a clean implementation if/when we get there. I suspect no one actually needs this, or when they do they'll just implement a custom Step and it can be parameterized at that level. I'm not too worried about this overall.
The major difference between this and Jenkins/Bamboo/TravisCI is that all three of those are **plan-centric**: the primary object in the system is a build plan, and the dashboard shows you all your build plans and the current status. I don't think this is the right model. One disadvantage is that you basically end up with top-level messaging that says "Trunk is broken", not "Trunk was broken by commit af32f392f". Harbormaster is **buildable-centric**: the primary object in the system is stuff you can run build operations against (commits/branches/revisions), and actual build plans are secondary. The main view will be "recent commits on this branch, and whether they're good or not" -- which I think is what's most important in a larger/more complex product -- not the pass/fail status of all jobs. This also makes it easier and more natural to integrate with Differential and Diffusion, which both care about the overall status of the commit/revision, not the current status of jobs.
Test Plan: Poked around, but this doesn't really do anything yet.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: zeeg, chad, aran, seporaitis
Maniphest Tasks: T1049
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7368
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. 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. Adds clarifying text which expands on policies and explains exceptions and rules. The goal is to provide an easy way for users to learn about special policy rules, like "task owners can always see a task".
This presentation might be a little aggressive. That's probably OK as we introduce policies, but something a little more tempered might be better down the road.
Test Plan: See screenshot.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7150
