Broadly, I'm supportive.

All changes in Phabricator need to be driven by strong, real-world use-cases.

@epriestley I hope to fix this in a very general way, which will also solve many of the other tickets related to Remarkup (T6276, T5951, T5427).

Resolved at HEAD. Follow T12174 for bugs/feature requests/future action items.

So, @epriestley: How do you feel about me taking over elasticsearch backend and moving it out to an extension rather than keeping it in phabricator core? The other possibility is I could just fork the elastic backend and name it something different, as it seems phabricator already supports loading the engine extension dynamically.

@ramm: I'm already on it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155299

In T9530#177353, @hach-que wrote:

So I was thinking about software components recently and one of the issues I've had with both Jenkins and Harbormaster is that builds of one repository aren't aware of the builds from another repository. This is a common scenario in the software I build:

I'd like to see real use cases for this before pursuing it. In the use cases above:

Oh! I think you found a bug. If you go to "GitHub Settings" on that page, enable "Trigger builds after pushing code", then enable "Build tags", then save. Then switch back to "Disable GitHub triggered builds", then save, it should hopefully start working for you.

Build also works fine if I submit it unmodified but omit the refs/tags/... prefix.

Only hit for "tag" is in this paragraph, which has no limits set (unless "empty text field" means "no tags"):

Here's a more granular transcript which suggests I'm not doing something goofy:

Check out your pipeline settings, if you "ctrl-f" for the word "tag" - is there an option somewhere?

When I submit this:

I'll take this and T6002. Where in Phabricator's source code can I find the relevant PHP code? Edit: Found it in libphutil.

Upshot: I'll do the thing that works for now. If we have tension down the road for the "code reviews intended for master" vs "code reviews intended for develop" use case, we can deal with it when it actually arises. It may be completely hypothetical. Users that did care could conceivably lift HARBORMASTER_BUILD_TARGET_PHID out of the environment and use Conduit to figure out where the review was targeted.

I guess there's also some amount of overloading here for "branch" and "commit", which is understandable since building tags/refs is rare.

This may be a bad approach, but one possible not-great-but-not-horribly-disruptive change might be this:

We don't have any examples of checkout hooks, but you can read the built in code path here that does the checkout: https://github.com/buildkite/agent/blob/master/agent/bootstrap.go#L948-L1051

I'll check in with Sam at Buildkite who wrote most of the tag/git handling gear in the Buildkite Agent. In the meantime, you can override our "checkout" process with a hook: https://buildkite.com/docs/agent/hooks to get it working how'd you prefer it to work. Once you've done that, we can figure out what we need to change on our end to merge in what ever bits you want.

I think what I actually did was this:

Hrrm, I may be incorrect about that and have accidentally forced the tag to fetch in some other way.

Things seem to work fine as long as we pass the full path to the tag (we currently don't, since I'm reusing some CircleCI code and CircleCI, a lovely an inventive build system with many creative and original ideas, did not work with a full ref).

No problems, just lemme know what you need to make it easier and I'll see what I can do :) Also if you have any BK questions feel free to reach out! 🐈

Let me poke at things and see how far I can get, there's a lot of future design space here that I want to leave open.

Ah! Using "phabricator/diff/1234" as the branch name would be pretty cool - we'd _might_ be able to do some special handling of that branch name pattern in our UI to make the whole experience a bit nicer. We could probably also extract the diff number out and have a nice link to the diff on the Phabricator end.

Thanks for the quick work on this!

🐈

😺 😺 😺

Howdy! Keith from Buildkite here. We actually started a Phabricator integration a while ago, but got stuck on the Phabriactor side of things. A ton of our customers use it, so we're super pumped to see it getting some traction.

@epriestley That's fair, I'll see what I can do.

Because of the complexity of building a reproduction case and high chance that this is a wild goose chase, we'll move forward with this after a community member confirms it reproduces for them. See T12134 for some discussion. See T12129 for a similar recent report which was a time-consuming wild goose chase.

I'm working on this thing but it's turning out to be fairly involved so I probably won't have a diff for a bit:

I'll counterdiff you for these:

This was fairly straightforward since the Buildkite API and Harbormaster appear to have very similar models of the world. D17270 adds at least basic support. It uses webhooks, so you don't need to configure any post-commands. There may be some bugs or rough edges, so let us know what you run into if once you have a chance to try it out.

In T10691#203011, @epriestley wrote:

I think most of these changes are independently good, at least, but supporting this practice is largely handing users rope so they can shoot themselves in the feet.

@epriestley Not that it will likely make you feel any better about it, but some of us just really want our Guns-Made-From-Rope™ to be powered by Phabricator instead of other much less awesome things. 😄

This also touches T10333: if you drop below card Z in group G (say, "High Priority" or "Assigned to alice"), I think intent is always to end up in group G even if card Z has moved from that group.

When you drop a card into a column, we send something like "alincoln dropped card X into column Y below card Z" to the server.

oh ok, i guess we should... catch this error and give a give a friendly message?

These aren't really related from a backend viewpoint, even though they're closely related from a UX viewpoint.

A while ago on some Phab instance I experienced people uploading copyrighted material as either files or Pholio mockups, then creating custom panels embedding those files plus creating a dashboard. Very creative and convenient. :) My guts also tell me that Conpherence rooms only accessible to specific users were involved to communicate/coordinate, but as admins are not all-powerful no-one could prove, I'm afraid.

Thanks, there's an example here of the API:
https://buildkite.com/docs/rest-api/builds#create-a-build

We're also assuming that you're red/green colorblind -- is that right? If you have some other kind of colorblindness, I think that would tend to explain why the colorblind changes made things worse for you, and I probably should not call the accessibility mode "Red/Green Colorblind".

• A very light "removed" color (default: very pale red) for lines which have removed text on them.
  • A more visible "removed" color (default: red) for lines which have been completely removed, text on lines which has been removed, and removed text in prose diffs.
  • A very light "added" color (default: very pale green) for lines which have added text on them.
  • A more visible "added" color (default: green) for lines which have been completely added, text on lines which has been added, and added text in prose diffs.