You should be able to delete the bad tasks with ./bin/worker cancel --id 117317.

We don't really want to take bugs on prototypes, especially ones that don't reproduce. No idea what steps I would need to take to get this error, we run Phortune fine on Phacility. Sorry.

I was playing with it and made a "Give me your money for free" Fund and now... I regret that...

Why are you filing bugs against a prototype? Are you using it?

BINGO! We have duplication. The updated steps in the description *will* recreate the issue.

http://admin.phacility.com/ -> New Instance -> Test Instance

@eadler, how do I do that? EDIT: Nevermind.

@CodeMouse92 consider duplicating on a phacility test instance.

@chad, I updated the reproduction instructions. I think the project having Subprojects already before adding the Milestone might be the mitigating factor. Let me know whether that reproduces. If not, I'll dig some more until we get this thing reproducing. I swear it's there!

Okay, I found the culprit in the apache configuration after debugging what happens in aphlict.

You probably need to configure Apache to correctly route the web sockets.

In T10783#170004, @hach-que wrote:

Otherwise I have no idea if your Apache load balancer is interfering with the connection.

Yeah that Docker instance is maintained by me. It's not intended to sit behind any kind of load balancing though (unless you're routing WebSockets directly to the client). Otherwise I have no idea if your Apache load balancer is interfering with the connection.

Yeah, you'll want to open one bug report per issue.

That would be one ticket for each of

Yeah, you'll want to open one bug report per issue. Also, installations via third party installers are not supported and aren't considered a valid means to reproduce the issue. You may use a Phacility test instance if you want an easy, clean, reproducible installation quickly built.

We should probably substitute in "Unknown Ghost" then.

Looks purposely set to VOID in the migration, maybe this information isn't recoverable historically.

Is is a mitigating factor that the PawLIB [Project] has six Subprojects? They all work correctly. I didn't think of it at the time, but maybe that has the project membership subtleties mixed up.

Oh criminey, that should have duplicated. Those are nearly exact same steps I followed on my local copy, but I get this:

Specifically I took these steps.

Can you clarify the steps to reproduce, specifically the first step. This doesn't reproduce for me.

This report does not appear to describe a bug in Phabricator, and does not include version information or reproduction steps.

Thanks for suggestion guys. Will do the workaround.

As a workaround you can create credentials in Passphrase, then select the credential and click "Continue"

I dug everything up here.

This bug report is missing version information and reproduction steps. Please take the time to file a complete bug report and re-open after. Thanks!

Technically, the feed story is correct.

(I got an error when I created this bug report, which is why I went and added another one. Then, I discover they're BOTH in existence. Meh. Merged duplicate into T10766: Calendar - Unhandled Exception, since I referenced that task elsewhere.)

Yeah, my bad. Sorry about this. Back to my cave.

See also earlier on the page:

Ugh, my apologies. I stand corrected. It's not, a bit later on the same page

Why do you believe the documentation is inaccurate?

I've triggered similar problems running reparse on a repository where branches had been deleted that were tracked.

That's probably (?) the repro.

Oh, I think I see.

You ran bin/storage upgrade?

/project/board/2/ always leads to the board and is the canonical URL.

In T10731#168665, @epriestley wrote:

The use of sh as it is written in the documentation is important.

This is what you are intended to write:

$ sh -c 'echo "$0"' xxx
xxx

This is what it looks like you're writing:

$ echo $0 xxx
-bash xxx

I'm just going to merge this into T10337, which discusses providing modern endpoints. repository.create is a broken mess and we tend to replace it rather than fixing it (it can't reasonably be fixed without breaking the API, anyway, so we'd end up with a new endpoint in effect, regardless). The new diffusion.edit will fix this and the many other problems with repository.create.