OK. If you are partially mentioning nonsenses in we.phorge.it itself, you are indeed right.

We might come from different user journeys.
Your users might be aware what the project means, and that the project (and its workboard) is archived, and they do have an initial reason to look at this archived workboard (e.g. default view is not "open tasks" but "all tasks")?
My users clicked an external link to some project tag in something called Phorge, and that project has been archived in the meantime, and that project is set to show the workboard by default, and that is now just empty columns (as the default view of workboards is "open tasks"), and that is confusing and unhelpful.

I mean. See this archived Project (archived Milestone), that is linked from our changelogs:

For example, some people then may ask "why my default view was changed?" and they will start manually "rollbacking" this to their desired view (e.g. showing closed tasks, from the Workboard, with a filter "Show all tasks").

Premising that I like the implementation but I think it's not the desired solution.

Premising that the root problem is that it's difficult to understand if a project is archived just looking at other parts.

Cleaner attempt in D25546 Diff 2113.

Thanks for the pointers, I really appreciate them.

/settings/panel/multifactor/ requires users to add a custom Name so there is likely code to adapt/reuse for /settings/panel/apitokens/

I think the EditEngine is what's used to create the actions form, and it has some sense of the object's status (see for example the available actions on Revisions - these change based on the revision's state).
Maybe it can get an additional "field" for this warning, and display it based on task status.

I remain unhappy with my code in D25546:

• Phorge lacks a method "give me all engines for this application".
• PhabricatorApplication offers nothing related to engines.
• PhabricatorEditEngine::getApplication() does what I want exactly the other way round: it returns the application for a given engine.
• PhabricatorEditEngine::getAllEditEngines() is confusingly named. It only returns EditEngine keys like calendar.export or maniphest.task but not actual engines or engine classes. ($engines = id(new PhabricatorEditEngineQuery())->setViewer($this->getViewer())->execute(); returns the actual engines, as already used by this code.)
• I cannot find some mapping between EditEngine keys (like maniphest.task) and either PhabricatorPHIDTypes (like ManiphestTaskPHIDType) or their TypeConstants (like TASK) either.
• getEngineClassName() exists but only in a SearchEngine/SearchQuery context, not in a EditEngine content (and I cannot find its constructor)

Something I stumbled upon few months ago (via forgejo): agit-flow[^1]. Maybe worth sharing here -- for teh record? It does have some CLI client (git-repo) but it's optional and push via git push origin HEAD:refs/for/<target-branch>/<session> would trigger the Code Review process, without gerrit's Change-Id hack.

To implement this, you may want to start from this 🌈

In T15749#16629, @avivey wrote:

Maybe put the warning above the box, so it catches all actions, not just comments?

:p

I was responding to the previous comment which...

Our company uses the Phorge, and we use Keycloak as IAM. Keycloak is a very popular OAuth2/SAML provider now.

Maybe put the warning above the box, so it catches all actions, not just comments?

GitHub/Facebook is already supported as a Login/Registration providers.

Yes will be great to see a SAML or Oauth support for external authorities like:

• Keycloak
• Entra ID
• Github
• Facebook
• WeChat / WeCom

Interesting. I see. Maybe expanding its controller that should be this one:

Yeah, in this one special place it doesn't matter; But that page already have a special body, so we can save even the extra click by putting the message right there...

OK I see. Indeed we should not put any similar button anywhere else.

But in Diffusion, that button is hidden behind a "Actions -> Manage" button, inside a screen that also has dozens of other admin actions. The clutter cost there is minimized.

I see. Maybe the root problem is that I'm in love with that Diffusion popup 🤔

In that case, we don't even need another button - just add a line to the "deleted message" that says something like "To completely remove the history from the database, contact your admin".

Premising the user already have an Delete Document button.

I feel that adding such a button would clutter the UI.
Users should generally "know" that in order to really delete things, they need to go to the admin, because they don't have the permissions anyway; And adding that just for the once-in-a-while that the admin needs this...

I mean, we can maybe have a "Delete" button that just shows the related CLI command, like I've seen around (Diffusion maybe)