Uhm this is a damn rabbit hole.

Trying the ManiphestTransactionEditor leads to a dead end. Added personal notes about it...

Uh I've found a workaround.

Thanks for the comments. For context (which I should have included initially), this task was borne out of a conversation between me, @aklapper and @valerio.bozzolan about which parts of a downstream hack I was working on (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T393289) could be useful upstream. If the answer is "none", I can live with that.

1. see parent task
2. This wouldn't actually help the described use-case anyway.

(see parent task - I'm against this).

I have not a strong opinion about author usernames (T16052) but if you say to decline that makes sense, especially if at least as small compromise we simplify bot recognition, T16051 and D25987, so that local installs can rewrite their UX without completely nuking their past history and doing complicated comment→transaction migrations on past data.

To put it another way:
I think the described use-case is too narrow, and a naive expansion of the use-case isn't scalable.
The described use-case fails for at least one possible use-case ("some bots have something useful to say").

Personally I'd decline T16052 (data duplication) and I do not yet see a need for potential new transaction types either (a comment is a comment is a comment no matter who/what made it).

Yes, this is where my first comment enters - I feel this is a rabbit-hole we shouldn't venture into, etc.
The current script appears to have 3 names, and referring to "legacy data" implies that there won't be any new names to add.

If you mean this kind of hardcoded CSS rules, yes, it's possible for local installs:

the legacy data can be handled by the already-existing hard-coded names...

Yessss, I agree and we explored a bit the creation of new transactions as good long-term direction, unfortunately it seems still necessary a bit of CSS help from the backend to cover the legacy data (e.g. 10 years old bot-generated comments, with traditional comments)

I feel this is a rabbit-hole we shouldn't venture into.
The slippery-slope argument will make us adding a custom class for each individual user, so css extensions can be used to hide/highlight comments from boss/intern/etc.
It's also probably not enough to remove the hard-coded requirement either - in some environments, one "bot" user is copying comments from another platform, and another is making statistical updates about a jira ticket, so you'd still need a better filter.

I think that, after the hidden comment is loaded in its bulk, "some more comments" are loaded as context for the hidden comment 🤔 So I guess that extra loading is probably a feature and not a bug.

@20after4: Willing to share some code at some point that folks can poke or play with? :) TIA!

So I got this mostly working locally, it's actually fairly trivial to reuse the existing token storage and infrastructure. Actually displaying the tokens might not be the most efficient of operations when there are a lot of comments on a given object. I still need to write an optimized query to fetch all of the token given in one query rather than many and then figure out how to display the tokens inline with the comments.

The only progress I've made is to think through the implementation but I haven't actually started coding on it. It is sort of high on my wish list so I may get to it soon.

Partially related to T15578: The action "Quote comment" has an incomplete fragment URL

clicking such a link w/javascript disabled will do nothing. Changing it to #123 and no JS will do something....

Implicitly, Phorge generally works fine for browsers where Javascript is completely disabled.

4. Why these nice URLs are set in these links, if nobody visit them?

Less priority of course, since this Task I authored is super-stupid

This is partially related to Comments

Thank you!

The image is not attached.

In T15192#5962, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

Feel free to test that on my platform that always is up to date:

https://gitpull.it/T1161#20588

Feel free to test that on my platform that always is up to date:

In T15192#5960, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

What?

What?