Excited about this too!
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Dec 10 2015
Alright, I will and I'll let you know, thanks
The same way you call it against your install.
No, I am asking you how can I make use of your install of Phabricator to test my script
Are you asking me how to write a script?
Sorry, and how can I do that?
You said you have having issues with your install of Phabricator. Why not try to test your script against our install of Phabricator.
What's not clear?
What you mean?
Can you reproduce the issue against this install?
Dec 9 2015
I think you forget the root problem.
I also found this to be an issue. I am guessing that it wasn't initially added because it needs some locking mechanics in place to make sure you are not removing a device that may currently be in use.
To clarify, you want Phabricator to turn you into a sandwich?
In T8434#147963, @epriestley wrote:I ultimately expanded the scope here into a lot of adjacent work in T9132, but a rough version of "better templating" is now available in HEAD and deployed and configured on this server. There's documentation here:
https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/forms/
This is still a bit rough in places and probably has some bugs, but I think the big picture stuff is working reasonably well and mostly usable.
I ultimately expanded the scope here into a lot of adjacent work in T9132, but a rough version of "better templating" is now available in HEAD and deployed and configured on this server. There's documentation here:
It is a sort of quick sort for the new devs of a school project thus it is hard to split and do less subsubtitle but it is not that bad to put a sentence beetwen h3 and h4.
Thus you can close as won't fix (I cannot any more).
In T9942#147948, @chad wrote:h3 + h4 is intended as header, subheader.
That was pretty fast :).
@chad, that seems to be rPbf227f77a5dc928f1380e4bc81059f83cfb96548 2 weesks ago and you explicitly add those lines so I guess it was intended for something somewhere.
Thus I wan't send a patchfor fixing this, cause I'm pretty sure to break somethink elsewhere.
h3 + h4 is intended as header, subheader.
I think this is probably not something we're going to fix.
mysql> SELECT u.username User, p.name Project, IF(f.id IS NULL, "NO", "YES") "Has MFA" FROM local_user.user u LEFT JOIN local_user.edge ue ON ue.src = u.phid AND ue.type = 14 LEFT JOIN local_project.project p ON ue.dst = p.phid LEFT JOIN local_auth.auth_factorconfig f ON f.userPHID = u.phid WHERE p.name = 'Dog Project'; +------+-------------+---------+ | User | Project | Has MFA | +------+-------------+---------+ | dog | Dog Project | NO | +------+-------------+---------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
@fanis Thanks for ur reply. It's not the reason of the problem. And it is quite weird that this problem will always exist with my test svn, but with my online svn which supports http it works fine. I don't know if there is something that do not support phabricator+svn solution (each of them works fine before combination) and no people including the contributors are aware of this.
Maybe slightly always ding a computer action vs. a human action. That is, if a human adds a subscriber, and herald adds a subscriber, that weight is (human action weight - 1), or something along those lines? Then if human adds a subscriber, but herald closes, the weight of the close action even though gets dinged, is likely still stronger.
Feel free to file a bug, thanks!
I can't seem to repro it either, might have been the issue with the edit route you fixed?
Ah, okay. I'm not sure what's going on there. I can't immediately reproduce that.
Did you update the base-uri?
whoops, yes
Nothing happened (was added to the text area)
Let me clarify,
In T9700#147847, @epriestley wrote:The new tools from T9132 are now in HEAD (see D14718 for documentation, which will land shortly).
Upon rereading your description, I think these won't actually do what you want.
It is an intentional design decision that projects do not directly impact policies, and I have no plans to ever change this. In particular, I think the behavior when a task is in multiple projects is too confusing to ever be clear, straightforward, or easy to use. The projects may imply contradictory policies and users already have difficulty understanding policies without this additional complexity.
Instead, use Spaces, and change Spaces instead of changing projects to move a task between visibility areas. (Perhaps it would be helpful to think of Spaces as "Projects", and think of Projects as "Tags".) Spaces resolve the "multiple projects" issue by requiring that an object be in only one space, so the policy behavior is straightforward.
Specifically, the rule is that the lesser of:
I couldn't include F1018337 in the original post?
Additional errata:
"Create Subtask" is a shortcut for "Create Task, then add it as a blocker for this one".
