Page MenuHomePhabricator

Provide OAuth access to Conduit
Open, Needs TriagePublic


The problem

We have an internal website (let's call it error-viewer) for triaging errors in a particular service. We want to integrate this website with maniphest by adding the ability to associate a maniphest task with each error. We'd like this to be possible without ever having to leave error-viewer.

Specifically, each item in error-viewer should be in one of two states:

(1) Associated with a maniphest task, in which case the item should have some visual indication of whether the task is open or closed. Users should be able to mark a maniphest task as open/closed without ever leaving error-viewer.
(2) Not associated with a maniphest task, in which case the item should have a button that lets me create a maniphest task without leaving error-viewer.

When a task is created, opened or closed from error-viewer, the associated task in maniphest should show which user closed the task. It shouldn't say "Maniphest-bot closed this task" -- it should say "rjkaplan closed this task".

Considered solutions

  1. Create tasks by sending an email to This doesn't provide a way to update tasks or query their status from error-viewer.
  2. Ask the user for their conduit API certificate and use the conduit API to make these requests. This is an annoyance for each new person to use our website (they have to find their certificate in the phabricator UI and give it to us). It's also less secure in all the ways that single-certificate based auth is less secure than OAuth. Won't go into that here.
  3. Create an admin user "Conduit-API-bot" and use its conduit API certificate and the "actAsUser" feature in the conduit API to pretend to be whatever user is logged in. But the "actAsUser" functionality is deprecated (for good reason).
  4. Use OAuth! This seems ideal (much easier to go through an OAuth flow than to find your certificate in the phabricator UI and give it to us - also feels less sketchy) but you can't create tasks through the OAuth API because ManiphestCreateTaskConduitAPIMethod::getRequiredScope resolves to ConduitAPIMethod::getRequiredScope which returns PhabricatorOAuthServerScope::SCOPE_NOT_ACCESSIBLE.

Suggested solution

Provide a way to create/update/get the open/closed state of tasks via OAuth.

Related Objects

Event Timeline

rjkaplan raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
rjkaplan updated the task description. (Show Details)
rjkaplan added a project: Maniphest.
rjkaplan updated the task description. (Show Details)
rjkaplan updated the task description. (Show Details)
rjkaplan updated the task description. (Show Details)
rjkaplan added a subscriber: rjkaplan.
epriestley added a subscriber: epriestley.

This is probably at least partially blocked on T5873, which we should sort out before expanding API access.

angie added a project: Restricted Project.May 20 2015, 5:05 PM
epriestley renamed this task from Provide a way to create/edit tasks through the OAuth API to Provide OAuth access to Conduit.Dec 4 2015, 7:58 PM
epriestley edited projects, added Conduit; removed Maniphest.
eadler added a project: Restricted Project.Jan 9 2016, 1:05 AM
eadler moved this task from Restricted Project Column to Restricted Project Column on the Restricted Project board.

Any update here? As far as I can tell it's also impossible to use any of the differential API endpoints using OAuth .

Please see Planning. We update tasks when new information is available, we don't have a secret shadow tracker with lots of juicy secrets that we aren't sharing.

This is the only difficult blocker for T7673, a bad behavior which is annoying and sort of user-hostile, so I'd like to at least plan our way through it.

This is probably not difficult to implement, but seems somewhat difficult to design. In particular, I would like both users and administrators to have granular control over what third-party applications are permitted to do so that OAuth isn't a convenient button which gives away the keys to the kingdom.

Maybe the flow goes like this:

  • Permissions are granular: an exhaustive list of callable Conduit methods.
  • OAuth Applications (in the "host" Phabricator) have controls for configuring application access. You can set each method to "Allowed" or "Disallowed". If a method is disallowed, the application is never permitted to request access for it.
  • Users confirm that they want to allow access.

So an application that wants to do something needs to get permission from the administrator via the application, and permission from the user via scope workflow. That seems fairly reasonable, and better than the Facebook/GitHub/etc case because the administrator is usually not the application owner here so this is a meaningful check on application power, while they usually are in those cases so it's pointless for an application to restrict access.

One possible issue is that Conduit methods may not be granular enough. For example, providing access to project.edit allows a client to both create and update projects. T7673 will add some sort of auth.logout method -- do applications need separate permission to log out their own tokens/sessions vs log out all web sessions vs log out all sessions across all token types?

I can't really think of any use cases where this particularly matters and isn't reasonably navigable, though.

This does mean that administrative configuration of OAuth server applications will be a huge pain if they need a lot of permissions, but I think that's generally fine, and we could make the UI easier down the road.

eadler moved this task from Restricted Project Column to Restricted Project Column on the Restricted Project board.Jul 4 2016, 9:15 PM

Are there any obvious ways to see scope requirements/availability today, even if it means spelunking into the source code?

Conduit API methods define a getRequiredScope() method, which tells you the scope they require.

Today, there are only actually two scopes, "always" and "never". These methods can "always" be called (any OAuth token is sufficient):


All other methods can never be called.

@epriestley any timing/plans for expanding? Would love to replace our older user token flows with an OAuth flow. We'd need a few other methods though:


Plans, yes. Timing is trickier. Currently, we only have one outstanding request for this feature (PHI760, which mostly wants So it's in queue somewhere, but currently beyond the forecasting horizon.

Even with OAuth, you still can't make AJAX requests to Conduit from client-side JavaScript, right? Is the idea that the backend code uses OAuth to talk to Conduit on a user's behalf?