As I mentioned, we also experience this with arc diff. Is that not supported?

Specifically, any effort to reproduce this in the upstream will meet this grizzly fate on the arc test step:

Yeah, arc test is not part of the upstream.

This is a Bitnami issue, and you should report it to them. See Contributing Bug Reports:

Just throwing my input in here:

• arc patch attempts to apply the patch to the commit the diff was based off; Is that what you were expecting?
• arc test is not a command I have; What is it?

@cspeckmim I think you probably confused me with @urzds, I didn't post any logs here yet.

I understand - i didn't wanted you to fix my configuration. I think as soon as i have some experience running phabricator in this setup i can try to help improving the setup, if even possible.

That is, we normally navigate complex configuration by verifying every step and just telling you what's wrong and how to fix it (e.g., moving all the MySQL, etc., configuration from documentation to automatic setup issues was a huge step forward), but there's basically no test we can perform on most of this chain.

In general, this configuration is a huge horrible mess but I'm having a hard time coming up with ways to really fix it that don't just tell you to run everything as root.

However, i wouldn't exclude that i misunderstood something about the moving parts of Phabricator.

Oh, I think I have a handle on the first issue -- you can ignore my questions about that.

It turned out that the git-user (aka vcs-user) created files as phd:phd

I also caught this vaguely related downstream report of markup list styles not rendering properly in mock descriptions:

Well now I feel silly for not noticing that. I searched for the line number of the error ><

We'll fix this eventually, but probably not until the next time we do major work on Phriction (T9379) since the impact is very minor.

Ah, it makes sense. Thanks!

I am seeing the same, and it makes sense, once you know it only contains waypoints that you click.

Thanks! The intended instruction was just "don't specify ssl.key, ssl.cert, etc.". D15787 should fix it.

I don't have to click "Cluster", it's just a subheader. Are you seeing something different?

Valid bug reports require steps to reproduce and version information. Please reopen the report once you've filled in this missing information. Thanks!

please close this. i think not restarting phd is my fault.

reproduced it on a fresh vm.

@fcoelho - Would you be able to test your log change with pushing to a mercurial repository not hosted by Phabricator, to compare with the log from your previous comment?

I can't reproduce this. For example, this host does not reproduce the issue:

i'm offsite until next thursday. will update the latest version then and recheck. the version used is about 2 weeks old and from stable branch.

It should use the base-uri; However, the early-return in that function makes sense, in the case of an absolute URI.

Looks like using [[ Prioritization ]] doesn't trigger that it's a good link. But [[ prioritization | Prioritization ]] does.

This is my Aphlict configuration:

(It's quite possible that I am doing something wrong here)

I'm going to merge this into T6018, which I think describes the same bug.

Sorry, we don't have the resources to help users debug setup and environmental issues which we can not reproduce. The documentation is extremely clear about this. See Support Resources. Bug reports must have clear, complete, self-contained reproduction steps. See Providing Reproduction Steps.

Thank you Evan!

I followed your instructions on a new, clean Phacility test instance, but the issue did not reproduce for me. Here's a screenshot:

Reproduction Steps

This report doesn't have enough information for us to help you solve the problem. See Providing Reproduction Steps for help with providing reproduction steps.

OK.

Yeah nothing here is ringing "Phabricator bug", at least nothing we can solve directly, but maybe identify and test for. How are static resources from your server being delivered to the users? Do you use anything like mod_pagespeed or Rocket Loader, or a proxy?

I'm going to close this since the upstream is going in a different direction. There may be some confusion around diffusion and differential, but I think @chad wanted to use the term "project tags" for that.

The upstream is moving to a direction where "Tags" are being used in situations where a project is being associated with a thing. This is because (I think) because people assumed objects could only be associated with a single project.

OK I understand. Even if the current UX is not perfect, if implementing an improved version would result in a more fragile UX because the code is a lot more complex, then yes, the current situation is preferable.

The upstream is moving to a direction where "Tags" are being used in situations where a project is being associated with a thing. This is because (I think) because people assumed objects could only be associated with a single project.

Why not collapsing the diff in this case?

Ah I was wondering about this comment, but since it was explicitly hidden, I thought it wasn't the cause.

There's an inline comment, visible in the left margin of the left-hand diff. You previously collapsed it.