First Part : Almanac - Create a service is now in

Thanks for the pointer. I wondered if there was something like that I could hook into.

I think https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/events/#ui-did-render-actions still works, that you can build a "Clone Task" action on the side of your Maniphest links and have it use that task as a templateID. Might be worth fiddling with locally.

I don't have a problem grouping the use cases together, and it makes a lot of sense to solve as many use cases as possible per feature. I just wanted to point out the differences so that when this task progresses, it can progress with the different use cases in mind. At a first glance, I didn't think the use cases were very similar at all, as this is a lot about creating a bunch of tasks by template (or from a template project), which is a bulk action, really, whereas really our use case is about task micromanagement. However, on further consideration, there is significant overlap, especially from what T3320 brings to the table.

Though this task also talks about Project Templates so maybe we should have two tasks.

All of your use cases fall into this task, I believe. That being "I want a new task based on x, y, or z" We want to group similar feature requests together for planning reasons, so multiple root problems can be solved by a common, thought-out framework. I can't guess what the UI would look like, or if we'd offer anything else like you're mentioning. I appreciate the detail on the original task, but in general we're not likely to be able to get more into a discussion on a task thats several years away at best.

How much time per day do you expect this feature to save you?

I see there is some similarity, but some important differences in the use cases:

• We are interested in splitting a specific task, crafting the title and description in particular, manually (in fact, with quite a lot of care), whereas here the focus is on creating generic tasks, or templated tasks
• We would not want subtasks to be copied, I don't think
• We need to be able to edit the original task at the same time as creating the new ones, whereas there is no aspect of that in this use case

Although this problem is severe, the absolute size of the leak appears to be small (my task title is hyperbolic). From the Cloudflare disclosure:

Thanks for the report! This should be fixed in HEAD of master, and promote to stable tomorrow, a little more than 24 hours from now. Let us know if you run into any issues.

Thanks for the report! This should be fixed in HEAD of master, and promote to stable tomorrow, a little more than 24 hours from now. Let us know if you run into any issues.

I merged this primarily for the "Create Similar Task" discussion above, which I think a similar enough feature.

I didn't "ref" it here, but D17401 sort of technically did this. I'd like to clean it up a bit more before calling this resolved, though -- particularly, this is basically a secret that only I know about.

Also, above, I used the term "deuteranomaly" when I meant "deuteranopia". I mistakenly believed they were describing the same type of colorblindness, but they are two different types.

Possibly this should really be three dimensions (Size, Contrast, Color Correction).

See T12060#213081 some end notes and followups.

See some additional discussion in T12172. Briefly:

@chad did another pass on user hovercards and they should be even more clear now (this screenshot doesn't demonstrate it clearly, but we also greyscale the profile photo);

Why do you have multiple authentication providers?

@epriestley: Yes, we have multiple authentication providers configured and needed in phabricator, and thus "allow auto login" won't work.

Yeah, I'm basically just keeping this open as a dumping ground for the moment and purely selfishly because my segfaults aren't resolved yet -- brew didn't have PHP 7.1.2 last I checked, although it seems like it now does. I've upgraded and I'll see if that improves things.

We need reproduction instructions which allow us to reproduce this issue in a clean environment. See Contributing Bug Reports and Providing Reproduction Steps.

How did you end up in this state?
Is this part of a fresh install, or an upgrade? If upgrade, what version was the old code, and what version is the new code?

Database status can not be retrieved, because I am told, upgrade the database first.

Ooh just kidding. ⌃+Refresh fixed everything

This has been "resolved" by switching to bartering various sundry goods and foodstuffs instead of billing via credit card.

Feel free to use a Phacility Test Instance and record your steps, thanks!

We require all bug reports provide complete reproduction steps. The main reason is so that anyone can follow and reproduce the bug in a local environment. Skipping details makes it difficult for most (or anyone but @epriestley) people to provide you with help.

Hi @rsmarples, unfortunately I don't know how to reproduce this based on your steps provided. Specifically, I do not see a broken "reference" link in the details of the commit. Do you know what additional steps I can take to see this bug locally? Everything looks formatted fine?

No time like the present.

In my scenario the external companies would not see eachother's tasks (separate Spaces), nor other internal items (default Space). However the developers within my company would need to see things from across multiple Spaces.

Yeah, but I still want Spaces to be "hard walls" around content. If it's just some minor dashboard permissions, it might be overkill (ie, they both need to see same tasks).

Do these dashboards contain sensitive information?

For the use-case I was trying to outline in T9501, this would be the case. We work with a handful of external companies and use Phabricator for organizing and communicating work. We also use Phabricator for our code review. Each project with external company (People, Projects, Maniphest) is organized into separate Spaces so that they are fully isolated, and we have a default space for internal use for Diffusion/Differential. Ideally when a user from Company A logs in they would land on a dashboard that shows only the Projects/Maniphest for them, while Company B user logs in and only shows the Projects/Maniphest for them.

In T12308#212972, @chad wrote:

Do these dashboards contain sensitive information?

Basically we're in feature request territory, and we'll want to understand the root problem installing all these dashboards solves before deciding on what to build.

Do these dashboards contain sensitive information?

In T12308#212968, @chad wrote:

What is your expectation here that we do?

I think this is still the best way we have to let you if the dashboard visibility is over-restrictive or mis-installed. I'm not sure magically disappearing it solves anything. It might help to know more about what you are trying to do (was this on purpose, or a mistake) in order to try to better inform admins when they order dashboards like this.

What is your expectation here that we do?

Probably very similar or even dupe of T9501

It is expected that taskmasters will exit and restart after an unexpected failure, but this should not trigger setup warnings. I'll see if I can reproduce this.

This might be the same as T12302, but I'll see what's going on.

Persistent chat was originally a separate column (so it didn't overlap with anything on the page) but was brought into the main page recently.