Re: A tool to put Phabricator and Bugzilla count into your browser toolbar

[Mike Conley]

>
> So if you've ever wanted your review queue to haunt you while you surf
> the web, you can have that now.
>

I wrote that mostly in jest, but burnout, overwork / workaholism are a real
thing, and I don't want to contribute to it.

I filed https://github.com/mikeconley/myqonly/issues/3 to add a "working
hours" feature so that you can disable the count outside of those hours.

-Mike

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 10:09, Mike Conley  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I wrote a WebExtension to put your total review count (Phabricator +
> Bugzilla) into your browser UI.
>
> So if you've ever wanted your review queue to haunt you while you surf
> the web, you can have that now.
>
> Here it is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/myqonly/
>
> The WebExtension uses good ol' page scraping to pull your Phabricator
> review count, and only works if you've got a live Phabricator session
> cookie. For Bugzilla, you need to supply an API token and put it in the
> add-on config in about:addons.
>
> Source: https://github.com/mikeconley/myqonly
>
> Issues, feature requests, pull requests and punnier names welcome.
>
> -Mike
>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: A tool to put Phabricator and Bugzilla count into your browser toolbar

[Mike Conley]

I'm all for it. Tracking in this issue:
https://github.com/mikeconley/myqonly/issues/5

On 2018-10-17 12:38 p.m., Nicholas Alexander wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 7:09 AM Mike Conley  > wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I wrote a WebExtension to put your total review count (Phabricator +
> Bugzilla) into your browser UI.
> 
> So if you've ever wanted your review queue to haunt you while you surf
> the web, you can have that now.
> 
> Here it is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/myqonly/
> 
> The WebExtension uses good ol' page scraping to pull your Phabricator
> review count, and only works if you've got a live Phabricator session
> cookie. For Bugzilla, you need to supply an API token and put it in the
> add-on config in about:addons.
> 
> Source: https://github.com/mikeconley/myqonly
> 
> Issues, feature requests, pull requests and punnier names welcome.
> 
> 
> I haven't tried this and all I can say is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.
> 
> Now, how do we add GH reviews as well?  It's ridiculous that my daily
> flow includes three systems with no plan (that I am aware of) to
> integrate them or even provide a dashboard, but here we are.
> 
> Nick



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: A tool to put Phabricator and Bugzilla count into your browser toolbar

[Nicholas Alexander]

Mike,

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 7:09 AM Mike Conley  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I wrote a WebExtension to put your total review count (Phabricator +
> Bugzilla) into your browser UI.
>
> So if you've ever wanted your review queue to haunt you while you surf
> the web, you can have that now.
>
> Here it is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/myqonly/
>
> The WebExtension uses good ol' page scraping to pull your Phabricator
> review count, and only works if you've got a live Phabricator session
> cookie. For Bugzilla, you need to supply an API token and put it in the
> add-on config in about:addons.
>
> Source: https://github.com/mikeconley/myqonly
>
> Issues, feature requests, pull requests and punnier names welcome.
>

I haven't tried this and all I can say is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

Now, how do we add GH reviews as well?  It's ridiculous that my daily flow
includes three systems with no plan (that I am aware of) to integrate them
or even provide a dashboard, but here we are.

Nick
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

A tool to put Phabricator and Bugzilla count into your browser toolbar

[Mike Conley]

Hi folks,

I wrote a WebExtension to put your total review count (Phabricator +
Bugzilla) into your browser UI.

So if you've ever wanted your review queue to haunt you while you surf
the web, you can have that now.

Here it is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/myqonly/

The WebExtension uses good ol' page scraping to pull your Phabricator
review count, and only works if you've got a live Phabricator session
cookie. For Bugzilla, you need to supply an API token and put it in the
add-on config in about:addons.

Source: https://github.com/mikeconley/myqonly

Issues, feature requests, pull requests and punnier names welcome.

-Mike



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Phabricator and Bugzilla

[Mark Côté]

On Monday, 9 April 2018 15:29:35 UTC-4, Randell Jesup  wrote:
> >As I indicated, those posts go into detail on why we are avoiding both
> >comment and more complicated flag mirroring.
> >
> >Mark
> 
> There's no obvious discussion of "flags" in the linked discussions you
> gave; I find only a couple of references to "flag" - in a question from
> gps.  Given how long the thread is (52 posts), perhaps you can point to
> something more specific?  Thanks

gps's post is what I was talking about.  It doesn't go into many details, but, 
to reiterate his main point, the mapping of disparate review systems is 
difficult and has lots of edge cases.  To add a bit of specifics, the models 
behind review flags in BMO, which are independent objects associated with 
specific attachments, is very different from the way Phabricator treats 
reviews, which are particular states of a revision.  It's doubtful we could 
ever have a perfect translation, so it would always be some sort of a hack.  
We've determined that a better solution is to expose Phabricator requests in 
Bugzilla as notifications and dashboards, as I linked in one of my replies 
above.

Mark


> 
> >On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Ben Kelly  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:09 AM Mark Côté  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Regarding comment and flag mirroring, we've discussed this before:
> >>>
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/
> >>> Y8kInYxo8UU/e3Pi-_FpBgAJ
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/
> >>> Y8kInYxo8UU/tsF7UfxvBgAJ
> >>>
> >>> Given that Phabricator is still new, I don't see any reason to reopen
> >>> that discussion at this point, aside from noting that we have work in
> >>> progress to include Phabricator requests in BMO's My Dashboard and
> >>> notifications indicator (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
> >>> show_bug.cgi?id=1440828).
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about comment mirroring?  On my mobile so I haven't read all the past
> >> threads, but my recollection is that your team did not want to implement
> >> that feature.  Personally, this is a huge concern for me.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Ben
> >>
> >>
> >>> As for interdiffs, feel free to file a bug with any problems you see.  We
> >>> have a good relationship with upstream and can pass those on.  Similarly
> >>> with method names (which has been mentioned before but I can't find where
> >>> at the moment).
> >>>
> >>> There is official documentation at https://secure.phabricator.
> >>> com/book/phabricator/ which is linked from our Mozilla-specific docs (
> >>> http://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html) which
> >>> in turn is linked in the left-hand menu in Phabricator.  We can expand our
> >>> own docs as needed if there are areas that are particularly confusing due
> >>> to, say, expectations carried over from our other code-review tools.
> 
> -- 
> Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp
> remove "news" for personal email

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Phabricator and Bugzilla

[Randell Jesup]

>As I indicated, those posts go into detail on why we are avoiding both
>comment and more complicated flag mirroring.
>
>Mark

There's no obvious discussion of "flags" in the linked discussions you
gave; I find only a couple of references to "flag" - in a question from
gps.  Given how long the thread is (52 posts), perhaps you can point to
something more specific?  Thanks

>On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Ben Kelly  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:09 AM Mark Côté  wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding comment and flag mirroring, we've discussed this before:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/
>>> Y8kInYxo8UU/e3Pi-_FpBgAJ
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/
>>> Y8kInYxo8UU/tsF7UfxvBgAJ
>>>
>>> Given that Phabricator is still new, I don't see any reason to reopen
>>> that discussion at this point, aside from noting that we have work in
>>> progress to include Phabricator requests in BMO's My Dashboard and
>>> notifications indicator (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
>>> show_bug.cgi?id=1440828).
>>>
>>
>> What about comment mirroring?  On my mobile so I haven't read all the past
>> threads, but my recollection is that your team did not want to implement
>> that feature.  Personally, this is a huge concern for me.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>> As for interdiffs, feel free to file a bug with any problems you see.  We
>>> have a good relationship with upstream and can pass those on.  Similarly
>>> with method names (which has been mentioned before but I can't find where
>>> at the moment).
>>>
>>> There is official documentation at https://secure.phabricator.
>>> com/book/phabricator/ which is linked from our Mozilla-specific docs (
>>> http://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html) which
>>> in turn is linked in the left-hand menu in Phabricator.  We can expand our
>>> own docs as needed if there are areas that are particularly confusing due
>>> to, say, expectations carried over from our other code-review tools.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp
remove "news" for personal email
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Phabricator and Bugzilla

[Mark Côté]

As I indicated, those posts go into detail on why we are avoiding both
comment and more complicated flag mirroring.


Mark


On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Ben Kelly  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:09 AM Mark Côté  wrote:
>
>> Regarding comment and flag mirroring, we've discussed this before:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/
>> Y8kInYxo8UU/e3Pi-_FpBgAJ
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/
>> Y8kInYxo8UU/tsF7UfxvBgAJ
>>
>> Given that Phabricator is still new, I don't see any reason to reopen
>> that discussion at this point, aside from noting that we have work in
>> progress to include Phabricator requests in BMO's My Dashboard and
>> notifications indicator (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
>> show_bug.cgi?id=1440828).
>>
>
> What about comment mirroring?  On my mobile so I haven't read all the past
> threads, but my recollection is that your team did not want to implement
> that feature.  Personally, this is a huge concern for me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ben
>
>
>> As for interdiffs, feel free to file a bug with any problems you see.  We
>> have a good relationship with upstream and can pass those on.  Similarly
>> with method names (which has been mentioned before but I can't find where
>> at the moment).
>>
>> There is official documentation at https://secure.phabricator.
>> com/book/phabricator/ which is linked from our Mozilla-specific docs (
>> http://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html) which
>> in turn is linked in the left-hand menu in Phabricator.  We can expand our
>> own docs as needed if there are areas that are particularly confusing due
>> to, say, expectations carried over from our other code-review tools.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 13:45:28 UTC-4, smaug  wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > just some random notes about Phabricator.
>> >
>> > I've been reviewing now a bunch of patches in Phabricator and the
>> initial feeling from
>> > reviewer's point of view is that it is ok. Not great, but ok.
>> > MozReview's interdiff, when it works, is easier to use or at least to
>> discover than Phabricator's.
>> > MozReview does also show the method name in which the code lives. This
>> latter thing is actually a big
>> > + to MozReview. (Same works in Bugzilla too when reviewing raw -P
>> patches at least. No idea about splinter, since I never use it).
>> > If Pabricator has the feature, I haven't found it yet - its UI is a tad
>> confusing occasionally.
>> >
>> > What is currently rather broken is the flag synchronization between
>> bugzilla and Phabricator.  One doesn't see in Bugzilla whether review has
>> been
>> > asked or whether review has been denied (r-). I believe people asking
>> reviews from me set the r? flag manually in bugzilla.
>> > Having an easy way to see that r- has been given to a patch is very
>> valuable to the reviewer when looking at the bug again.
>> > Oddly enough, approving the patch in Phabricator does set r+ in
>> Bugzilla.
>> >
>> > Not mirroring comments from Phabricator to Bugzilla has already made
>> following reasoning for certain code changes harder.
>> > It is so easy to include non-code level information in review comments.
>> So far I haven't had a case where I would have needed to look at the blame
>> and
>> > try to find relevant information both in bugzilla and in phabricator,
>> but that will obviously happen if we don't do the mirroring and it will slow
>> > down reviewing in the future (since looking at the history/reasoning
>> for the code changes is a big part of code reviewing).
>> >
>> > I'm sure I haven't found all the tricks Phabricator has to help
>> reviewing. Is there some reviewing-in-Phabricator-for-dummies doc?
>> >
>> >
>> > I haven't asked reviews in Phabricator (nor in MozReview), so can't
>> comment on how they compare from patch author's point of view.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > br,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Olli
>>
>> ___
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Phabricator and Bugzilla

[Ben Kelly]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018, 10:09 AM Mark Côté  wrote:

> Regarding comment and flag mirroring, we've discussed this before:
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/Y8kInYxo8UU/e3Pi-_FpBgAJ
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/Y8kInYxo8UU/tsF7UfxvBgAJ
>
> Given that Phabricator is still new, I don't see any reason to reopen that
> discussion at this point, aside from noting that we have work in progress
> to include Phabricator requests in BMO's My Dashboard and notifications
> indicator (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1440828).
>

What about comment mirroring?  On my mobile so I haven't read all the past
threads, but my recollection is that your team did not want to implement
that feature.  Personally, this is a huge concern for me.

Thanks.

Ben


> As for interdiffs, feel free to file a bug with any problems you see.  We
> have a good relationship with upstream and can pass those on.  Similarly
> with method names (which has been mentioned before but I can't find where
> at the moment).
>
> There is official documentation at
> https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/ which is linked from our
> Mozilla-specific docs (
> http://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html) which
> in turn is linked in the left-hand menu in Phabricator.  We can expand our
> own docs as needed if there are areas that are particularly confusing due
> to, say, expectations carried over from our other code-review tools.
>
> Mark
>
> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 13:45:28 UTC-4, smaug  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > just some random notes about Phabricator.
> >
> > I've been reviewing now a bunch of patches in Phabricator and the
> initial feeling from
> > reviewer's point of view is that it is ok. Not great, but ok.
> > MozReview's interdiff, when it works, is easier to use or at least to
> discover than Phabricator's.
> > MozReview does also show the method name in which the code lives. This
> latter thing is actually a big
> > + to MozReview. (Same works in Bugzilla too when reviewing raw -P
> patches at least. No idea about splinter, since I never use it).
> > If Pabricator has the feature, I haven't found it yet - its UI is a tad
> confusing occasionally.
> >
> > What is currently rather broken is the flag synchronization between
> bugzilla and Phabricator.  One doesn't see in Bugzilla whether review has
> been
> > asked or whether review has been denied (r-). I believe people asking
> reviews from me set the r? flag manually in bugzilla.
> > Having an easy way to see that r- has been given to a patch is very
> valuable to the reviewer when looking at the bug again.
> > Oddly enough, approving the patch in Phabricator does set r+ in Bugzilla.
> >
> > Not mirroring comments from Phabricator to Bugzilla has already made
> following reasoning for certain code changes harder.
> > It is so easy to include non-code level information in review comments.
> So far I haven't had a case where I would have needed to look at the blame
> and
> > try to find relevant information both in bugzilla and in phabricator,
> but that will obviously happen if we don't do the mirroring and it will slow
> > down reviewing in the future (since looking at the history/reasoning for
> the code changes is a big part of code reviewing).
> >
> > I'm sure I haven't found all the tricks Phabricator has to help
> reviewing. Is there some reviewing-in-Phabricator-for-dummies doc?
> >
> >
> > I haven't asked reviews in Phabricator (nor in MozReview), so can't
> comment on how they compare from patch author's point of view.
> >
> >
> >
> > br,
> >
> >
> >
> > -Olli
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Phabricator and Bugzilla

[Mark Côté]

Regarding comment and flag mirroring, we've discussed this before:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/Y8kInYxo8UU/e3Pi-_FpBgAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/Y8kInYxo8UU/tsF7UfxvBgAJ

Given that Phabricator is still new, I don't see any reason to reopen that 
discussion at this point, aside from noting that we have work in progress to 
include Phabricator requests in BMO's My Dashboard and notifications indicator 
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1440828).

As for interdiffs, feel free to file a bug with any problems you see.  We have 
a good relationship with upstream and can pass those on.  Similarly with method 
names (which has been mentioned before but I can't find where at the moment).

There is official documentation at 
https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/ which is linked from our 
Mozilla-specific docs 
(http://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html) which in 
turn is linked in the left-hand menu in Phabricator.  We can expand our own 
docs as needed if there are areas that are particularly confusing due to, say, 
expectations carried over from our other code-review tools.

Mark

On Thursday, 29 March 2018 13:45:28 UTC-4, smaug  wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> just some random notes about Phabricator.
> 
> I've been reviewing now a bunch of patches in Phabricator and the initial 
> feeling from
> reviewer's point of view is that it is ok. Not great, but ok.
> MozReview's interdiff, when it works, is easier to use or at least to 
> discover than Phabricator's.
> MozReview does also show the method name in which the code lives. This latter 
> thing is actually a big
> + to MozReview. (Same works in Bugzilla too when reviewing raw -P patches at 
> least. No idea about splinter, since I never use it).
> If Pabricator has the feature, I haven't found it yet - its UI is a tad 
> confusing occasionally.
> 
> What is currently rather broken is the flag synchronization between bugzilla 
> and Phabricator.  One doesn't see in Bugzilla whether review has been 
> asked or whether review has been denied (r-). I believe people asking reviews 
> from me set the r? flag manually in bugzilla.
> Having an easy way to see that r- has been given to a patch is very valuable 
> to the reviewer when looking at the bug again.
> Oddly enough, approving the patch in Phabricator does set r+ in Bugzilla.
> 
> Not mirroring comments from Phabricator to Bugzilla has already made 
> following reasoning for certain code changes harder.
> It is so easy to include non-code level information in review comments. So 
> far I haven't had a case where I would have needed to look at the blame and
> try to find relevant information both in bugzilla and in phabricator, but 
> that will obviously happen if we don't do the mirroring and it will slow
> down reviewing in the future (since looking at the history/reasoning for the 
> code changes is a big part of code reviewing).
> 
> I'm sure I haven't found all the tricks Phabricator has to help reviewing. Is 
> there some reviewing-in-Phabricator-for-dummies doc?
> 
> 
> I haven't asked reviews in Phabricator (nor in MozReview), so can't comment 
> on how they compare from patch author's point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> br,
> 
> 
> 
> -Olli

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Phabricator and Bugzilla

[smaug]

Hi all,

just some random notes about Phabricator.

I've been reviewing now a bunch of patches in Phabricator and the initial 
feeling from
reviewer's point of view is that it is ok. Not great, but ok.
MozReview's interdiff, when it works, is easier to use or at least to discover 
than Phabricator's.
MozReview does also show the method name in which the code lives. This latter 
thing is actually a big
+ to MozReview. (Same works in Bugzilla too when reviewing raw -P patches at 
least. No idea about splinter, since I never use it).
If Pabricator has the feature, I haven't found it yet - its UI is a tad 
confusing occasionally.

What is currently rather broken is the flag synchronization between bugzilla and Phabricator.  One doesn't see in Bugzilla whether review has been 
asked or whether review has been denied (r-). I believe people asking reviews from me set the r? flag manually in bugzilla.

Having an easy way to see that r- has been given to a patch is very valuable to 
the reviewer when looking at the bug again.
Oddly enough, approving the patch in Phabricator does set r+ in Bugzilla.

Not mirroring comments from Phabricator to Bugzilla has already made following 
reasoning for certain code changes harder.
It is so easy to include non-code level information in review comments. So far 
I haven't had a case where I would have needed to look at the blame and
try to find relevant information both in bugzilla and in phabricator, but that 
will obviously happen if we don't do the mirroring and it will slow
down reviewing in the future (since looking at the history/reasoning for the 
code changes is a big part of code reviewing).

I'm sure I haven't found all the tricks Phabricator has to help reviewing. Is 
there some reviewing-in-Phabricator-for-dummies doc?


I haven't asked reviews in Phabricator (nor in MozReview), so can't comment on 
how they compare from patch author's point of view.



br,



-Olli
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform