I think this has never worked -- nothing actually reads this preference. This makes converting it for T4103 a little tricky.

D15942 restores the project tag transaction to the first mail about an object:

I guess this originally had several different parts. My thinking on the parts are:

or that

Better to do the header tags in the body text thing?

I think we're mostly unsure what we want to do here.

Is this task open to be Prioritized? Wikimedia is discussing the possibility to fund it at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T135327

This report doesn't have reproduction instructions (see Providing Reproduction Steps) and is likely obsoleted by T10697.

D15454 changes the wording to:

We should probably change the text on "placed up for grabs" to "unassigned from X". I don't think we use that term anywhere else nowadays, either.

This is particularly problematic in the UI when you need to revert the first change to a task since creation - there doesn't appear to be any way to find the initial assignee of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T129128#2105237 for example

It's mainly the projects that I want to see as well. Although there has been talk of priorities etc. as well

In T10493#162973, @epriestley wrote:

It looks like the root problem in all of the downstream reports is that projects, specifically, are no longer readily available (although they previously weren't on emails deeper in the thread, either).

"implement Gmail in Phabricator"

Yeah, this was mostly-intentional while resolving T9527 / T7661.

Ref T10004.

I have a vague feeling it's related to cleaning up the initial create transactions, that is, we used to show every field on the first transaction, which was silly since you could see what all the initial values are above.

@chr86: Yes, I was able to solve this a while ago. If I remember correctly, I have just used the following instructions and, perhaps, restarted the server once or twice: https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/notifications. Hope this helps. I think I wrote down the solution steps, but couldn't find that document at the moment (maybe I didn't write anything down) - please let me know, if you are successful in that.

@ablekh : Were you able to solve this issue in the end? We're experiencing the same problem and are not using any proxy server.

I'm not sure how to reproduce this (it didn't reproduce just now), and haven't seen any other instances of it or further reports. It's possible this was fixed earlier this year; we did some work on inbound mail around the time of this report.

(Test.)

@nnnn20430: I see, thank you for clarification. I will give that a try.

@ablekh i just added a "fastcgi_param HTTPS on;" in nginx config for phabricator

@nnnn20430: Thank you for the reference. Did you apply the patch, included in T9293: WebSockets access problems with reverse SSL proxy ?

ok figured it out the problem for me was because of this bug T9293

i have same problem, the notification server is working and it logs notifications like on new message in Conpherence app, but nothing get's updated in notifications ui and it also just says "Setting Up Client".

This has been in production for quite a while.

• You can now technically write this as an extension by extending HeraldAction, although mail is quite complicated and this extension may be challenging to write.
• You could use an extension like the one in P1895 to add a comment instead, although I think this will be caught by notification preferences.
• You can use the action above (reject commit unless they bypass).
• You could use "Add Projects" and then just manually email the offenders who got hit at the end of the week to warn them.

This is definitely something which can be improved -- the transcript has been updated recently and is fairly clear ("Forced Mail", "...ignoring notification preferences..."). The /mail/ UI is fairly clear too, but hard to find right now. Other UIs and interactions haven't been updated as recently and aren't as clear.

Herald! Thank you Evan.
Yes I had forgotten about that. (Wondering how I could have found out though.)
I've disabled the personal rule.
I'm closing this task as invalid and will adjust the task summary to describe what was the PEBKAC here.

See also this in the transcript:

aklapper (Andre Klapper)

• Mail Tags: This mail has tags which control which users receive it, and this recipient has not elected to receive mail with any of the tags on this message (Settings > Email Preferences).
• Forced by Herald: This recipient was added by a "Send me an Email" rule in Herald, which overrides some delivery settings.

Please read this document carefully before filing a feature request:

It worked!

oh, I completely misread this. I thought it was mentioned me not mentioned thing I'm subscribed to. I'd like to recant my 'sounds great' to 'idk'.

(A similar block in shouldHideForFeed() prevents these from publishing redundant feed stories, and stops the actual notifications.)

Implementing this feature just involves deleting the code in PhabricatorApplicationTransaction->shouldHideForMail() which prevents these from sending mail.

@stophi, this is essentially the same. Phabricator does not currently update the 'jewels' or 'messages/notifications' in real-time. Would love to, just haven't built it.

sounds good to me

(Happy to implement this if it is desirable for the upstream)

I've been playing with push notifications for some time and I think web push native notifications could be very handy here, especially for Conpherence.

If it was an actual mention, you'd presumably get the mail under the "comment" rule, although it's possible the user in question has also disabled comment mail.

Maybe this should fall under "mentions"

See also T4411, although I expect to get to this before that.

It does indeed, thanks!

"Mark All Read" should remove them, but only if you have another newer notification than any of the phantom notifications.

Until the root cause is fixed, can we at least have "Mark all as read" get rid of them?

Going to group the Notification tasks, since building this would resolve the form submission flow.

Yeah, I don't think it's terrible since it should happen very rarely if we do "don't generate" too, and no matter how clever we are it's unavoidable in some cases (even if we policy filter, we might send down a "3", and then by the time the user actually opens the menu or clicks the bell they can no longer see one of them).

I suppose we could tell you "3 notifications about things you can no longer see were dismissed" to make this a bit less magical.

Broadly, this is messy because:

We only convey this information through the use of color, which could also cause difficulty for users who do have vision problems.

https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/feature_requests/#describe-problems

This problem is happening for both the notification popup as well as the dedicated notification page.

In T8924#127702, @chad wrote:

But you still need T7004 to effectively manage when we can bother you about stuff. And if we had that and Super Herald Pro XL (if I am not online and someone mentions me, send me a text), you could make the actual benefit of "push notifications" fairly marginal (and still hard to build/configure vs email). Don't get me wrong, this sounds cool, though.

@Yomi is this task meant to solve a problem you have today with Phabricator today? If so, what is it? https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/feature_requests/#describe-problems

I also think the Conpherence mobile web app is pretty reasonable, it just needs push notifications to get people to come back to it. Building a native app is something that can be done way down the road, while push notifications for Conpherence is something that can be done shorter term to make Conpherence useful now.

Oh no, I definitely wouldn't want push notifications for all of Phabricator either; that would defeat the purpose of having a separate channel for high frequency messaging. I just want them for Conpherence :P

Ah sorry, I should be more specific. I think push notifications in a chat app are supremely awesome, but for all of Phabricator its not something I think is useful. For Conpherence, I'd rather build an app for mobile than force people to use web (which would have push).

I never want to get emails for Conpherence, unless they're summary messages of conversations that I haven't already read, regardless of T7004. I do want to get immediate notifications on my phone for conversations that are happening, I just don't want it to litter my inbox.

But you still need T7004 to effectively manage when we can bother you about stuff. And if we had that and Super Herald Pro XL (if I am not online and someone mentions me, send me a text), you could make the actual benefit of "push notifications" fairly marginal (and still hard to build/configure vs email). Don't get me wrong, this sounds cool, though.

Push Notifications are far more suitable for Conpherence where sending emails is extremely spammy (especially because emails are either always sent or never sent). Push notifications would allow you to bundle multiple messages into a single notification like Slack does.