In T12607#221036, @epriestley wrote:

This is also prrrrobably an awful idea, but in theory we could put, say, HAProxy on each host in front of Apache and have it queue connections while Apache was restarting. That feels like we're building a really flimsy house of cards, but it's something computers could technically do.

This is also prrrrobably an awful idea, but in theory we could put, say, HAProxy on each host in front of Apache and have it queue connections while Apache was restarting. That feels like we're building a really flimsy house of cards, but it's something computers could technically do.

Cool. Harbormaster integration will also give you other UI hints like these, to help communicate build status to reviewers so they don't accept a change which has failed or in-progress builds:

Yes, it would. We haven't fully integrated the build system with Phabricator, but I'll review the docs and see how much more work we need to do.

This isn't the end of the world, but it's pretty bad if you have a mixture of private and less-private threads (sidebar state and main panel state are inconsistent).

If you integrate with Harbormaster, users will be prompted explicitly when they try to arc land a revision with build failures:

Engineers are not hitting a prompt when landing, they are disregarding the unit test failure message or not reviewing why the build failed. Since the build failure is on an external system, the engineer needs to view this information separately (the system posts a comment why the build failed). The overall goal of a herald rule blocking the land is so that owner can communicate that checking in code without running or successful unit tests is not cool.

Can you provide some more context about why engineers are hitting the "builds failed" prompt, and continuing through it anyway with failing tests and/or nonbuilding code?

The current ruleset implements all those rules correctly, except that it 200's directly for /status/.

redirect to Javelin

On secure, two not-so-great fixes are:

Sounds good.

I'll file a task for "unfuck status check".

I think you might need to send a Host header to trigger the RedirectMatch... but the LB certainly isn't; it just knows IP/port/path. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh, maybe not. Things are kind of weird on secure. We should probably sort that out and get that hitting "real" /status/ somehow.

Oh, hrrm. Maybe that RedirectMatch is actually getting hit in practice by the LB, that's suuuper old. I get this from the host itself:

The actual check is elsewhere in that file:

secure is hitting the magic override code in the second link since we deploy rSERVICES there too.

Yeah, I don't like trying to mess with the LBs very much either. I recall the FB F5's (I think?) took like 75 seconds per API call and you needed to make 12 API calls to remove a host, I just figured AWS LBs might be some kind of special magic LBs that can add and remove elements from a list in about a second.

In T12607#220957, @epriestley wrote:

On health-check, vanilla Phabricator runs this:

https://secure.phabricator.com/source/phabricator/browse/master/src/applications/system/controller/PhabricatorStatusController.php

Another possible question here is: how long does it take to pull a node out of an ELB with the AWS API? If it's very fast, maybe worthwhile to pursue actively managing nodes in the LB. But I'm guessing it's at least similar to the ~10s health check stuff.

On health-check, vanilla Phabricator runs this:

I'm pretty sure there's a reasonable way to ask apache to gracefully stop in a blocking way

There's also a discussion to be had about generally increasing the robustness of the healthcheck: that endpoint could attempt a DB connection, look for a full disk, check that ntp status is reasonable, etc, etc. This has tradeoffs as far as creating extra CPU load, false negatives, etc, etc, but there's probably a happy medium between "Apache doing RedirectMatch 200 "^/status/$"" and generating a full page.

Maybe "duration of all file upload requests" / "duration of all requests". That isn't a perfect metric but should be a reasonable-ish proxy for real resources we care about, I think.

What would the appropriate query be? "Number of uploaded files with size greater than X as a percentage of all files/file bytes"?

nice progress bar

I suspect this isn't worth the complexity. If you drag-and-drop, the maximum request size is 4MB (one chunk) and we get a nice progress bar, resumable uploads, and the bucket can remain completely private. And we can do encryption and deduplicate file blocks.

I agree, pagination way below the fold is rather inconspicuous

hahaha, thanks... really easy to miss those

Bystander input: try page 3: https://phabricator.kde.org/source/krita/browse/master/libs/ui/?offset=200

I patched this and deployed it. I'll follow up on the internal report with details.

Thanks, this is fallout from an incident last night. The particulars involved instance and user details so the discussion was kept private. I'll fix this shortly.

In T12593#220668, @epriestley wrote:

I'm going to merge this into T12374.

If you have time, answering the questions in T12374#214870 on that task might be helpful. There are many possible implementations of this feature (e.g., per user/per workboard/global) and it's not clear to me which are desired from the use cases. It would also be helpful to understand what the major stumbling blocks are for using "bookmarks" and "saving queries to the menu" as workarounds (just cumbersome? Not the right scope/audience?).

I'd just redo them on a case by case basic. Too many variables.

In T12601#220840, @epriestley wrote:

The only behavior of --lintall is to make warnings act like errors. Just raise everything at error severity to achieve the same thing without patching anything.

The only behavior of --lintall is to make warnings act like errors. Just raise everything at error severity to achieve the same thing without patching anything.

In T12601#220824, @epriestley wrote:

You are probably raising messages at "warning" severity, but want to raise them at "error" severity. See, e.g., here for a description:

T4287#47494

You are probably raising messages at "warning" severity, but want to raise them at "error" severity. See, e.g., here for a description:

@chad, a lot of this is probably ultimately design -- how much passion do you feel for hovercards? The infrastructure is in good shape and I can add the "context hint" piece pretty easily if we want to look at that. Not sure if this is a bigger/more complicated project that you don't want to touch for the moment or whatever, though.

(I assumed it was a keydown vs keypress vs whatever event sort of thing but haven't actually looked into it.)

Yeah, this bites me half the time too.

One spanner in the works here is that not all applications with mail preferences are on Modular Transactions yet. I think these are missing:

(there are some other wierd issues in IE11, so I expect I'll clean up some of the UI issues I see).

We require reporters file complete steps to reproduce the issue. If we can't based on the information provided, it's still on you to provide an updated, more specific set of steps. Also, we don't support third party extenstions like sprint. Feel free to reproduce against a clean install on phacility.com

is there something I can do to help you? or some suggestions regarding the browser that better supports the tool?

We don't plan to implement this.

I can't reproduce this.

On the 26th we will update the version to the new one, I have been told.

Allowing users to select a subform from "Create Subtask" isn't technically very difficult, but it starts to potentially make the UI pretty messy and complicated. Some possible implementations are:

TEST:
Version Information

For my own reference, T12570 isn't exactly related but can probably be tested/fixed at the same time.

Stealing this since I think it's session/auth related, not profile picture related: I think the user has a legitimate picture, they just aren't allowed to download it since they have a partial session.

T8918 is related.