Page MenuHomePhabricator

Release: start adding changerequests
Changes PlannedPublic

Authored by avivey on Dec 9 2016, 10:16 PM.

Details

Reviewers
None
Group Reviewers
Blessed Reviewers
Test Plan

tbd

Diff Detail

Repository
rP Phabricator
Branch
release
Lint
Lint SkippedExcuse: WIP
Unit
Unit Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 14914
Build 19537: Run Core Tests
Build 19536: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

avivey updated this revision to Diff 40947.Dec 9 2016, 10:16 PM
avivey retitled this revision from to Release: start adding changerequests.
avivey updated this object.
avivey edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
avivey planned changes to this revision.Dec 9 2016, 10:17 PM
avivey updated this revision to Diff 40969.Dec 12 2016, 5:06 PM
avivey edited edge metadata.
  • wip still
avivey planned changes to this revision.Dec 12 2016, 5:06 PM
avivey updated this revision to Diff 41026.Dec 14 2016, 7:00 PM

Editing, Actions, Controller, List All.

avivey planned changes to this revision.Dec 14 2016, 7:00 PM
avivey updated this revision to Diff 41114.Dec 17 2016, 1:38 AM
  • $release->canAcceptChangeRequests()
  • conduit .edit, .search methods
  • db migrations
  • custom fields
  • add TODO and OPEN QUESTIONS
avivey planned changes to this revision.Dec 17 2016, 1:38 AM

@epriestley: When you have a chance, I've gathered some mostly-technical questions that I'd like your input on:

  • expandTransaction: Because I decided to implement "custom actions" using transactions (P2009), I ended up having xactions that are shown on the timeline ("avive has frozen this release"), but their actual work is been handled by another xaction ("CloseBranchTransaction"). expandTransaction is how the old transaction code handled this, but it didn't make it to the modular code. Should I just find a new way to do it?
  • What kind of Edges do we need? RepositoryInRelease, ObjectRequestedAsChangeForRelease, ChangeRequestInRelease, ?
  • Should Change Request have their own policy, subscribers, comments, etc.?
  • Transactions Metadata: That one didn't make the cut for modular-transactions either. For the case of "Updates on CR show up on the Release page", they would be very useful. Do we hate it?
  • In Releeph, there's a "want" status, that's corresponds to Differential's Accept, and distinct from "Pull" status. Is that an important enough feature to include as first-class? Is there a way to include something like that (A user->value mapping) as a Custom Field?
  • EditEngine::buildCustomEditFields(): Why don't we move the field definitions into the *TransactionType classes, and then use reflection to implement this method? It looks like there's a 1-1 relation between fields and xaction types.
avivey updated this revision to Diff 41129.Dec 20 2016, 9:38 PM

Check policy when requesting a new change

avivey planned changes to this revision.Dec 20 2016, 9:38 PM
avivey updated this revision to Diff 41522.Jan 28 2017, 5:42 PM
  • rebase
avivey planned changes to this revision.Jan 28 2017, 5:43 PM