Awesome, thanks for following up. Let us know if you run into anything else!

I do not plan to ever let you reorder milestones.

my current view is basically that the official subprojects implementation only makes this much more clunky and restricts some parts of it, rather than moves it forward. As it is, the current subproject implementation doesn't seem to do much else than make a couple of links appear, and restrict the usage of some features (tagging and project membership handling are changed/restricted, at least).

We deployed D16714 and reran one of the failing tasks -- it completed cleanly as expected. Thanks!

For reference, http://phacility.com/ is a Phabricator application itself, so think all the tools are available.

I presume you meant to ask this question in Ponder, otherwise please see Contributing Feature Requests for what information is required in a feature request. Generally, we do not provide support for building applications/plugins/extensions against Phabricator.

I'm going to merge this into T11357. We can provide a "Delete File Data" transaction type when we implement a third-generation file.edit API.

Is this a dup of (fixed) T10746?

In T11669#197945, @chad wrote:

It's always felt like 10% unpredictable to me, but I haven't tried it in a while.

Among other issues, arrows are, e.g., ambiguous in this case:

...
|          |   |   B    |
+----------+   +--------+
+----------+  
|    A     |   +--------+
|          |   |   C    |
|          |   +--------+
+----------+
+----------+   +--------+
|          |   |   D    |
...

If you click "Move Right" on "Panel A", does it move between panels B and C or between panels C and D?

This has been live for about two months without any substantive issues arising.

I don't plan to implement the rest of the feature request. Assuming drag and drop works correctly, I think this operation (reordering panels) is rare enough that using it is reasonable without introducing the additional complexity of duplicate controls.

It should show a pretty clear preview of what it's going to do before you drop, so I'm not sure how it could be unpredictable? I wasn't able to identify any weird/surprising behavior when I tried to reproduce this.

It's always felt like 10% unpredictable to me, but I haven't tried it in a while.

In T11775#197941, @epriestley wrote:

even sometime seems to me not properly working

If this isn't working properly, please file a bug report with complete reproduction steps we can use to reproduce the issue. See Contributing Bug Reports.

even sometime seems to me not properly working

I wasn't actually able to reproduce this -- were you, @chad?

Pagination isn't quite as simple as I'd remembered. Specifically, we do not expose internal pagination cursors to viewers today because doing so permits an information discovery attack that goes like this:

Ok, thanks for the explanation!

Broadly, I think the two above comments are expressing a mixture of two ideas:

The proposed behavior (no subproject columns) means that tasks could be in multiple different columns at different levels, since they'd be draggable normally on each workboard:

T11774 wants a "delete file data" transaction, which is reasonable.

This is working as intended, and not a bug. Administrators can not bypass policies. See the User Guide: Account Roles documentation:

The feeling now is that by assigning a task to a subproject it "dissapears", since it cannot be tracked in the workboard with milestones of the parent project, and is two extra clicks away: Subprojects > Mac OS X.

I think this behavior is very good

This is also a potential problem in the general case, although the general case of this is very rare.

Broadly, most applications can execute Spaces queries cheaply by querying ... AND spacePHID IN (<list of spaces the viewer can see>) when Spaces are configured, which is efficient until some install decides to create 30,000 Spaces for some reason.

The reporting user configured debug.time-limit to get a stack, which confirms this is a Feed issue:

Here are slightly cleaned-up recent timeouts from the logs:

yeah this is tricky since Conpherence has it's own separate notification channel. I was hoping to just pop these in with standard Mailtags, which sort of works, but is also sort of confusing.

[ Ok ] [ Try Again ]

I'm pretty sure you're filing this ticket in the wrong place. We don't have any lyrics.

I'm going to close this since things seem to have at least mostly worked and installs have had a couple of weeks to yell at us if we blew anything major up, but let us know if anyone runs into further issues.

This is a global javascript behavior, it's not tied to accounts or policy access.

Have the same issue.
Somehow it depends on the user accounts. Some users can do it, some can not. Any idea what userconfig can be causing that?

As said in Q501 it will be useful to have some components (e.g. an administrative panel) that appear on top of all the dashboards.

That is quite hard to protect against real people dedicating their time on spamming projects. As @epriestley mentioned, there are paid systems for that.

In T10215#197817, @epriestley wrote:

From what we've seen on this install, the "printer fax support" spammers are humans willing to go to significant lengths to overcome access barriers (they fill out Captchas, register and link GitHub/Google accounts, validate email addresses, successfully navigate workflow changes, originate from different remote addresses, and take actions slowly), so I suspect no automated system designed to deter bots will be effective against them. My best guess is that they're being recruited through Mechanical Turk or some similar system.

I can't remember if Phabricator already requires a confirmed e-mail address to do anything.

In T10215#197805, @brechtvl wrote:

• Custom Blender specific captcha or question that bots can't answer

Of course there's no totally automatic and reliable system, we're just trying to find something better than manually removing dozens of spam tasks every day.

We can also let installs send us all their data, we'll decide if it's spam or not, then we remotely delete any data that we feel like deleting. But we'd have to charge like a gorillion dollars per message to make this sustainable today.

Hi Matheus,

Nuance (Phabricator Help Desk) is the only reasonable way forward here I can think of, which puts new tasks into a private queue). Anything else is cat & mouse with spammers and that's just a huge time sink for us with no obvious benefit (99% of installs are private).

What sort of reliable and automatic solution are you hoping for? How could the system reliably, automatically detect that a user is a spammer or that a task assignment is unwanted?

The past few days we've had a lot of spam on the Blender phabricator instance. These spammers are also assigning tasks to random users, who then get emailed. See here for examples:
https://developer.blender.org/maniphest/query/all/