I'm going to merge this into T7715, which has some more discussion.

(I'm not sure if the daemon is fast like "100 milliseconds" or fast like "5 seconds").

Also, if whatever you're running is extremely fast already (i.e., effectively caching results for you), you can just have both lint and unit run it and ignore the parts of the output they don't care about.

There may be a better pathway forward for issuing the actual prompt after T10329, depending on how that pans out.

There's more discussion of this in T9223, which effectively superseded this. I've filed T10329 to describe the pathway forward.

Alright, let me take a stab at that..

You can copy/paste it into src/extensions/ to generate a new maniphest.gettasktransactionswithids endpoint, but whateves, sure, send a diff.

Yeah, I think that's reasonable. The actual logic is mostly trivial (look forward for transactions with the same author within 5 minutes) but then has a long tail of complex ordering/hiding/grouping/folding behaviors. If you just do something like:

Sorry, I mean: where is the bot getting the link from?

Where are you getting the link from?

I'm just going to merge this into T5873 (which discusses building a modern transaction read API, among other things).

I think it's probably better, but renaming it causes this in Diffusion:

Ah, sure -- sorting the home page by first-publish date makes instead of creation date sense to me.

You can change the defaults available in the dropdown with pygments.dropdown-choices in Config.

I would use it to give Chad a new hand-drawn picture every day.

Particularly, I like that it allows users who are feeling the most pain (e.g., triager or PM types) to gently pressure users to bother doing setup properly by suggesting awful pictures, or do the legwork and suggest good ones.

Would anyone else use "Suggest a picture for another user" if we built it (T4104)? I think this feature is hilarious/social/fun/easy but maybe I'm alone in that.

It looks like the reporter has moved on for other reasons:

Does this fix it?

Use bin/search index --type task to rebuild the index.

(or any id)

There are several reasons we don't do that:

Instead, it now throws this exception.

I mean, far be it from me to declare myself Lord King Questmaster of the Realm, that just seems like a lot and/or not a lot of valuable and desirable Quest Points for this particular task.

Is this REALLY worth 12 quest points!?

We should probably have it to fix T8135 anyway, I was just planning to cheat through that but definitely can't cheat through "Group By: Assignee".

I've spent about 8 hours on this today and made nearly zero progress.

I think @Pawka is west-cost install administrator, they have (at least) two totally separate installs.

I guess that isn't very helpful for practice. :)

I think I could just build this as an extension? (I've never built one, so I'm a little interested in building one for practice)