The UI stuff seems to be figured out so I'm going to call this done this continue work in T4788.

Thanks. D16167 should hide this and the similar HTTP/HTTPS check for unapproved, disabled, unverified, etc., users, who can't act on them.

Thanks! That is exactly what we had, and I was not aware of it. And yes, we have this on purpose because of there being a load balancing (trusted) proxy in front of Phabricator. For whatever reason, I assumed Phabricator had it's own X-Forwarded-For handling. Mainly my mistake here was jumping to the assumption that Phabricator was looking at X-Forwarded-For based on the value - even though the error message never indicated that it was.

Since I typed up most of this anyway:

Closed as "invalid". I apologize for the noise. This was an undocumented Twitter specific patch.

I believe D16166 resolves this. See T11179 and T4788 for followups.

this is a rather minor nit, but figured I should report it regardless.

Yeah, this is a little obscure since I was trying not to build more than we needed. The URI comes from DiffusionRepositoryManagementPanel->newEditEnginePage(), which does this:

I dinked around on this but for the life of me, can't find where it's getting the URI from. I did learn how paging works in EditEngine though.

Thanks!

Follow the instructions in Restarting Phabricator.

Offhand, I'm surprised by this. I expect LFS smudging to be a side effect of git checkout and for all Drydock working copy construction pathways to invoke git checkout. This appears consistent with advice from the LFS upstream (albeit a year or so old):

There's no pathway forward here without reproduction steps.

I think this use case (specifically, deploying working copies of a repository to a Phabricator host) is extremely unusual.

@PhabTab Prefer this discussion to occur somewhere other than this task. See Support Resources under Community. But I think if you pull up PhabricatorContentSource in Diffusion and look at Commit History, you should find your answer.

In T3179#181813, @PhabTab wrote:

What could be the alternative method for

PhabricatorContentSource::newConsoleSource()

Was there a previous Phabricator version with this method? Which method replaced it?

What could be the alternative method for

PhabricatorContentSource::newConsoleSource()

Was there a previous Phabricator version with this method? Which method replaced it?

Neither phill nor Bitnami are upstream built/supported.

Unfortunately I cant import with phill. I get:

I think we'll manage. (:

Yep, sry, I didn't know that that was your test account, but @epriestley told me at IRC.

I added those for a reason.

m8b

Countdowns!!!!!!

My plan forward is:

Presuming this is resolved, but let me know if I'm missing anything.

See D12033 for discussion.

oh

It's intentional that we don't support these because they appear frequently in expressions source code, for example:

also affected by this, same report/errormessage.

well now

I totally understand. Since it doesn't seem likely that I can reproduce the issue, I'll dig more and see what I can find helpful. Thanks.

Basically us taking 1-2 hours to solve a complex issue is likely very reasonable vs. you spending hours/days on it depending on severity and timeliness need.

Uh, okay. That number looks scary. I guess I have to figure it out by myself. Thanks.

We're happy to do whatever you need under Phacility Consulting services. This bills out at $1,500 an hour.

Chad, would screen remote-control work for you to help?

Basically, we need specifics in order to provide you with additional help. If you could go out of your way to give us too much information, it would be great.

git pull isn't how you update Phabricator. Can you go into complete detail of every command you ran, cut and paste the output if you like.

Chad, I really appreciate your help. For clear steps, all I did was just 'git pull', and I'm sorry, I know it's really inconvenient for you but I don't think I'd be able to provide the access unfortunately. Is there any other option for me to get help? Like point me to how I could debug this. Thanks. Appreciate.

Can you either provide us with a clear set of steps to reproduce the issue on a second machine or provide us access to your machine?