Page MenuHomePhabricator

Improving of "Associate Projects" action.
AbandonedPublic

Authored by rugabarbo on Apr 18 2014, 6:23 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Apr 24, 10:31 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Apr 20, 6:46 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Apr 11, 9:29 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Apr 7, 5:46 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Mar 31, 3:23 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mar 25 2024, 11:55 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mar 25 2024, 10:30 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mar 24 2024, 2:13 PM

Details

Reviewers
epriestley
Group Reviewers
Blessed Reviewers
Summary

This change makes possible create new project when we use "Associate Projects" action for task.

Test Plan
  1. Go to any task.
  2. Choose "Associate Projects" action.
  3. Click "Create New Project" link.
  4. Input some valid name of new project.
  5. Click "Create Project" button.
  6. Save changes for task.
  7. Make sure that new project created and attached to task.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP Phabricator
Branch
improved-proj-assoc
Lint
Lint Passed
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 2
Build 2: [Placeholder Plan] Wait for 30 Seconds

Event Timeline

rugabarbo retitled this revision from to Improving of "Associate Projects" action..
rugabarbo updated this object.
rugabarbo edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
rugabarbo added a reviewer: epriestley.

@btrahan, you recently fixed a bug for related functionality: D8834: Project - add editor-level support for detecting name conflicts
Can you help me with this review?

prettyplease

epriestley edited edge metadata.

We haven't seen other requests for this, and it's intentionally somewhat difficult to create projects.

Particularly, it was very easy to create tags in a similar tool at Facebook, and the result was 200,000+ tags, the majority of which were completely unusable. There were other considerations here, but generally we've intentionally positioned projects as somewhat-heavyweight.

We may eventually provide a more complex control here (see T1906), but I don't think this change is a net positive at the moment.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Apr 22 2014, 7:41 PM

@epriestley, OK.
Thanks for your explanations.