zulip/static/js/settings_users.js

679 lines
21 KiB
JavaScript
Raw Normal View History

const settings_data = require("./settings_data");
const render_admin_user_list = require("../templates/admin_user_list.hbs");
const render_bot_owner_select = require("../templates/bot_owner_select.hbs");
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
const render_admin_human_form = require('../templates/admin_human_form.hbs');
const render_admin_bot_form = require('../templates/admin_bot_form.hbs');
const meta = {
loaded: false,
};
exports.reset = function () {
meta.loaded = false;
};
const section = {
active: {},
deactivated: {},
bots: {},
};
function compare_a_b(a, b) {
if (a > b) {
return 1;
} else if (a === b) {
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
function sort_email(a, b) {
const email_a = settings_data.email_for_user_settings(a) || '';
const email_b = settings_data.email_for_user_settings(b) || '';
return compare_a_b(
email_a.toLowerCase(),
email_b.toLowerCase()
);
}
function sort_role(a, b) {
function role(user) {
if (user.is_admin) { return 0; }
if (user.is_guest) { return 2; }
return 1; // member
}
return compare_a_b(role(a), role(b));
}
function sort_bot_owner(a, b) {
function owner_name(item) {
const owner = people.get_bot_owner_user(item);
if (!owner) {
return '';
}
if (!owner.full_name) {
return '';
}
return owner.full_name.toLowerCase();
}
return compare_a_b(
owner_name(a),
owner_name(b)
);
}
function sort_last_active(a, b) {
return compare_a_b(
presence.last_active_date(a.id) || 0,
presence.last_active_date(b.id) || 0
);
}
function get_user_info_row(user_id) {
return $("tr.user_row[data-user-id='" + user_id + "']");
}
function update_view_on_deactivate(row) {
const button = row.find("button.deactivate");
const user_role = row.find(".user_role");
button.prop("disabled", false);
row.find('button.open-user-form').hide();
row.find('i.deactivated-user-icon').show();
button.addClass("btn-warning reactivate");
button.removeClass("deactivate btn-danger");
button.html("<i class='fa fa-user-plus' aria-hidden='true'></i>");
button.attr('title', 'Reactivate');
row.addClass("deactivated_user");
if (user_role) {
const user_id = row.data('user-id');
user_role.text("%state (%role)".replace("%state", i18n.t("Deactivated")).
replace("%role", people.get_user_type(user_id)));
}
}
function update_view_on_reactivate(row) {
const button = row.find("button.reactivate");
const user_role = row.find(".user_role");
row.find("button.open-user-form").show();
row.find('i.deactivated-user-icon').hide();
button.addClass("btn-danger deactivate");
button.removeClass("btn-warning reactivate");
button.attr('title', 'Deactivate');
button.html('<i class="fa fa-user-plus" aria-hidden="true"></i>');
row.removeClass("deactivated_user");
if (user_role) {
const user_id = row.data('user-id');
user_role.text(people.get_user_type(user_id));
}
}
function get_status_field() {
const current_tab = settings_panel_menu.org_settings.current_tab();
switch (current_tab) {
case 'deactivated-users-admin':
return $("#deactivated-user-field-status").expectOne();
case 'user-list-admin':
return $("#user-field-status").expectOne();
case 'bot-list-admin':
return $("#bot-field-status").expectOne();
default:
blueslip.fatal("Invalid admin settings page");
}
}
function failed_listing_users(xhr) {
loading.destroy_indicator($('#subs_page_loading_indicator'));
const status = get_status_field();
ui_report.error(i18n.t("Error listing users or bots"), xhr, status);
}
function populate_users(realm_people_data) {
let active_users = [];
let deactivated_users = [];
let bots = [];
for (const user of realm_people_data.members) {
if (user.is_bot) {
bots.push(user);
} else if (user.is_active) {
active_users.push(user);
} else {
deactivated_users.push(user);
}
}
active_users = _.sortBy(active_users, 'full_name');
deactivated_users = _.sortBy(deactivated_users, 'full_name');
bots = _.sortBy(bots, 'full_name');
section.active.create_table(active_users);
section.deactivated.create_table(deactivated_users);
section.bots.create_table(bots);
}
function reset_scrollbar($sel) {
return function () {
ui.reset_scrollbar($sel);
};
}
function bot_owner_full_name(owner_id) {
if (!owner_id) {
return;
}
const bot_owner = people.get_by_user_id(owner_id);
if (!bot_owner) {
return;
}
return bot_owner.full_name;
}
function bot_info(bot_user) {
const owner_id = bot_user.bot_owner_id;
const info = {};
info.is_bot = true;
info.is_admin = false;
info.is_guest = false;
info.is_active = bot_user.is_active;
info.user_id = bot_user.user_id;
info.full_name = bot_user.full_name;
info.bot_owner_id = owner_id;
// Convert bot type id to string for viewing to the users.
info.bot_type = settings_bots.type_id_to_string(bot_user.bot_type);
info.bot_owner_full_name = bot_owner_full_name(owner_id);
if (!info.bot_owner_full_name) {
info.no_owner = true;
info.bot_owner_full_name = i18n.t("No owner");
}
info.is_current_user = false;
info.can_modify = page_params.is_admin;
// It's always safe to show the fake email addresses for bot users
info.display_email = bot_user.email;
return info;
}
2020-05-08 15:09:21 +02:00
function get_last_active(user) {
const last_active_date = presence.last_active_date(user.user_id);
if (!last_active_date) {
return i18n.t("Unknown");
}
return timerender.render_now(last_active_date).time_str;
}
function human_info(person) {
const info = {};
info.is_bot = false;
info.is_admin = person.is_admin;
info.is_guest = person.is_guest;
info.is_active = person.is_active;
info.user_id = person.user_id;
info.full_name = person.full_name;
info.bot_owner_id = person.bot_owner_id;
2020-05-08 15:09:21 +02:00
info.can_modify = page_params.is_admin;
info.is_current_user = people.is_my_user_id(person.user_id);
info.display_email = settings_data.email_for_user_settings(person);
if (person.is_active) {
// TODO: We might just want to show this
// for deactivated users, too, even though
// it might usually just be undefined.
info.last_active_date = get_last_active(person);
}
return info;
}
section.bots.create_table = (bots) => {
const $bots_table = $("#admin_bots_table");
list_render.create($bots_table, bots, {
name: "admin_bot_list",
modifier: function (bot_user) {
const info = bot_info(bot_user);
return render_admin_user_list(info);
},
filter: {
element: $bots_table.closest(".settings-section").find(".search"),
predicate: function (item, value) {
js: Convert a.indexOf(…) !== -1 to a.includes(…). Babel polyfills this for us for Internet Explorer. import * as babelParser from "recast/parsers/babel"; import * as recast from "recast"; import * as tsParser from "recast/parsers/typescript"; import { builders as b, namedTypes as n } from "ast-types"; import K from "ast-types/gen/kinds"; import fs from "fs"; import path from "path"; import process from "process"; const checkExpression = (node: n.Node): node is K.ExpressionKind => n.Expression.check(node); for (const file of process.argv.slice(2)) { console.log("Parsing", file); const ast = recast.parse(fs.readFileSync(file, { encoding: "utf8" }), { parser: path.extname(file) === ".ts" ? tsParser : babelParser, }); let changed = false; recast.visit(ast, { visitBinaryExpression(path) { const { operator, left, right } = path.node; if ( n.CallExpression.check(left) && n.MemberExpression.check(left.callee) && !left.callee.computed && n.Identifier.check(left.callee.property) && left.callee.property.name === "indexOf" && left.arguments.length === 1 && checkExpression(left.arguments[0]) && ((["===", "!==", "==", "!=", ">", "<="].includes(operator) && n.UnaryExpression.check(right) && right.operator == "-" && n.Literal.check(right.argument) && right.argument.value === 1) || ([">=", "<"].includes(operator) && n.Literal.check(right) && right.value === 0)) ) { const test = b.callExpression( b.memberExpression(left.callee.object, b.identifier("includes")), [left.arguments[0]] ); path.replace( ["!==", "!=", ">", ">="].includes(operator) ? test : b.unaryExpression("!", test) ); changed = true; } this.traverse(path); }, }); if (changed) { console.log("Writing", file); fs.writeFileSync(file, recast.print(ast).code, { encoding: "utf8" }); } } Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
2020-02-08 04:55:06 +01:00
return item.full_name.toLowerCase().includes(value) ||
item.email.toLowerCase().includes(value);
},
onupdate: reset_scrollbar($bots_table),
},
2019-08-15 07:33:31 +02:00
parent_container: $("#admin-bot-list").expectOne(),
init_sort: ['alphabetic', 'full_name'],
sort_fields: {
email: sort_email,
bot_owner: sort_bot_owner,
},
});
2019-08-15 07:33:31 +02:00
loading.destroy_indicator($('#admin_page_bots_loading_indicator'));
$("#admin_bots_table").show();
};
section.active.create_table = (active_users) => {
const $users_table = $("#admin_users_table");
list_render.create($users_table, active_users, {
name: "users_table_list",
modifier: function (item) {
2020-05-08 15:09:21 +02:00
const info = human_info(item);
return render_admin_user_list(info);
},
filter: {
element: $users_table.closest(".settings-section").find(".search"),
filterer: people.filter_for_user_settings_search,
onupdate: reset_scrollbar($users_table),
},
parent_container: $("#admin-user-list").expectOne(),
init_sort: ['alphabetic', 'full_name'],
sort_fields: {
email: sort_email,
last_active: sort_last_active,
role: sort_role,
},
});
loading.destroy_indicator($('#admin_page_users_loading_indicator'));
$("#admin_users_table").show();
};
section.deactivated.create_table = (deactivated_users) => {
const $deactivated_users_table = $("#admin_deactivated_users_table");
list_render.create($deactivated_users_table, deactivated_users, {
name: "deactivated_users_table_list",
modifier: function (item) {
2020-05-08 15:09:21 +02:00
const info = human_info(item);
return render_admin_user_list(info);
},
filter: {
element: $deactivated_users_table.closest(".settings-section").find(".search"),
filterer: people.filter_for_user_settings_search,
onupdate: reset_scrollbar($deactivated_users_table),
},
parent_container: $("#admin-deactivated-users-list").expectOne(),
init_sort: ['alphabetic', 'full_name'],
sort_fields: {
email: sort_email,
role: sort_role,
},
});
loading.destroy_indicator($('#admin_page_deactivated_users_loading_indicator'));
$("#admin_deactivated_users_table").show();
};
exports.update_user_data = function (user_id, new_data) {
if (!meta.loaded) {
return;
}
const user_row = get_user_info_row(user_id);
if (new_data.full_name !== undefined) {
// Update the full name in the table
user_row.find(".user_name").text(new_data.full_name);
}
if (new_data.owner_id !== undefined) {
// TODO: Linkify the owner name to match the
// formatting of the list. Ideally we can
// make this whole function simpler
// by re-rendering the entire row via
// the list widget.
const owner_name = bot_owner_full_name(new_data.owner_id);
user_row.find(".owner").text(owner_name);
}
if (new_data.is_active !== undefined) {
if (new_data.is_active === false) {
// Deactivate the user/bot in the table
update_view_on_deactivate(user_row);
} else {
// Reactivate the user/bot in the table
update_view_on_reactivate(user_row);
}
}
if (new_data.is_admin !== undefined || new_data.is_guest !== undefined) {
user_row.find(".user_role").text(people.get_user_type(user_id));
}
};
function start_data_load() {
loading.make_indicator($('#admin_page_users_loading_indicator'), {text: 'Loading...'});
loading.make_indicator($('#admin_page_bots_loading_indicator'), {text: 'Loading...'});
loading.make_indicator($('#admin_page_deactivated_users_loading_indicator'), {text: 'Loading...'});
$("#admin_deactivated_users_table").hide();
$("#admin_users_table").hide();
$("#admin_bots_table").hide();
// Populate users and bots tables
channel.get({
url: '/json/users',
idempotent: true,
timeout: 10 * 1000,
success: exports.on_load_success,
error: failed_listing_users,
});
}
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
function open_human_form(person) {
const user_id = person.user_id;
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
const html = render_admin_human_form({
user_id: user_id,
email: person.email,
full_name: person.full_name,
is_admin: person.is_admin,
is_guest: person.is_guest,
is_member: !person.is_admin && !person.is_guest,
});
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
const div = $(html);
const modal_container = $('#user-info-form-modal-container');
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
modal_container.empty().append(div);
overlays.open_modal('#admin-human-form');
const element = "#admin-human-form .custom-profile-field-form";
$(element).html("");
settings_account.append_custom_profile_fields(element, user_id);
settings_account.initialize_custom_date_type_fields(element);
const pills = settings_account.initialize_custom_user_type_fields(
element,
user_id,
true,
false
);
return {
modal: div,
fields_user_pills: pills,
};
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
}
function get_human_profile_data(fields_user_pills) {
/*
This formats custom profile field data to send to the server.
See render_admin_human_form and open_human_form
to see how the form is built.
TODO: Ideally, this logic would be cleaned up or deduplicated with
the settings_account.js logic.
*/
const new_profile_data = [];
$("#admin-human-form .custom_user_field_value").each(function () {
// Remove duplicate datepicker input element generated flatpicker library
if (!$(this).hasClass("form-control")) {
new_profile_data.push({
id: parseInt($(this).closest(".custom_user_field").attr("data-field-id"), 10),
value: $(this).val(),
});
}
});
// Append user type field values also
for (const [field_id, field_pills] of fields_user_pills) {
if (field_pills) {
const user_ids = user_pill.get_user_ids(field_pills);
new_profile_data.push({
id: field_id,
value: user_ids,
});
}
}
return new_profile_data;
}
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
function open_bot_form(person) {
const html = render_admin_bot_form({
user_id: person.user_id,
email: person.email,
full_name: person.full_name,
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
});
const div = $(html);
const modal_container = $('#user-info-form-modal-container');
modal_container.empty().append(div);
overlays.open_modal('#admin-bot-form');
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
// NOTE: building `users_list` is quite expensive!
const users_list = people.get_active_humans();
const owner_select = $(render_bot_owner_select({users_list: users_list}));
owner_select.val(bot_data.get(person.user_id).owner || "");
modal_container.find(".edit_bot_owner_container").append(owner_select);
return div;
}
function confirm_deactivation(row, user_id, status_field) {
const modal_elem = $("#deactivation_user_modal").expectOne();
function set_fields() {
const user = people.get_by_user_id(user_id);
modal_elem.find(".email").text(user.email);
modal_elem.find(".user_name").text(user.full_name);
}
function handle_confirm() {
const row = get_user_info_row(user_id);
modal_elem.modal("hide");
const row_deactivate_button = row.find("button.deactivate");
row_deactivate_button.prop("disabled", true).text(i18n.t("Working…"));
const opts = {
success_continuation: function () {
update_view_on_deactivate(row);
},
error_continuation: function () {
row_deactivate_button.text(i18n.t("Deactivate"));
},
};
const url = '/json/users/' + encodeURIComponent(user_id);
settings_ui.do_settings_change(channel.del, url, {}, status_field, opts);
}
modal_elem.modal("hide");
modal_elem.off('click', '.do_deactivate_button');
set_fields();
modal_elem.on('click', '.do_deactivate_button', handle_confirm);
modal_elem.modal("show");
}
function handle_deactivation(tbody, status_field) {
tbody.on("click", ".deactivate", function (e) {
// This click event must not get propagated to parent container otherwise the modal
// will not show up because of a call to `close_active_modal` in `settings.js`.
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
const row = $(e.target).closest(".user_row");
const user_id = row.data('user-id');
confirm_deactivation(row, user_id, status_field);
});
}
function handle_bot_deactivation(tbody, status_field) {
tbody.on("click", ".deactivate", function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
const button_elem = $(e.target);
const row = button_elem.closest(".user_row");
const bot_id = parseInt(row.attr("data-user-id"), 10);
const url = '/json/bots/' + encodeURIComponent(bot_id);
const opts = {
success_continuation: function () {
update_view_on_deactivate(row);
},
error_continuation: function (xhr) {
ui_report.generic_row_button_error(xhr, button_elem);
},
};
settings_ui.do_settings_change(channel.del, url, {}, status_field, opts);
});
}
function handle_reactivation(tbody, status_field) {
tbody.on("click", ".reactivate", function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
// Go up the tree until we find the user row, then grab the email element
const button_elem = $(e.target);
const row = button_elem.closest(".user_row");
const user_id = parseInt(row.attr("data-user-id"), 10);
const url = '/json/users/' + encodeURIComponent(user_id) + "/reactivate";
const data = {};
const opts = {
success_continuation: function () {
update_view_on_reactivate(row);
},
error_continuation: function (xhr) {
ui_report.generic_row_button_error(xhr, button_elem);
},
};
settings_ui.do_settings_change(channel.post, url, data, status_field, opts);
});
}
function handle_bot_owner_profile(tbody) {
tbody.on('click', '.user_row .view_user_profile', function (e) {
const owner_id = parseInt($(e.target).attr('data-owner-id'), 10);
const owner = people.get_by_user_id(owner_id);
popovers.show_user_profile(owner);
e.stopPropagation();
e.preventDefault();
});
}
function handle_human_form(tbody, status_field) {
tbody.on("click", ".open-user-form", function (e) {
const user_id = parseInt($(e.currentTarget).attr("data-user-id"), 10);
const person = people.get_by_user_id(user_id);
if (!person) {
return;
}
const ret = open_human_form(person);
const modal = ret.modal;
const fields_user_pills = ret.fields_user_pills;
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
modal.find('.submit_human_change').on("click", function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
const user_role_select_value = modal.find('#user-role-select').val();
const full_name = modal.find("input[name='full_name']");
const profile_data = get_human_profile_data(fields_user_pills);
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
const url = "/json/users/" + encodeURIComponent(user_id);
const data = {
full_name: JSON.stringify(full_name.val()),
is_admin: JSON.stringify(user_role_select_value === 'admin'),
is_guest: JSON.stringify(user_role_select_value === 'guest'),
profile_data: JSON.stringify(profile_data),
};
settings_ui.do_settings_change(channel.patch, url, data, status_field);
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
overlays.close_modal('#admin-human-form');
});
});
}
function handle_bot_form(tbody, status_field) {
tbody.on("click", ".open-user-form", function (e) {
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
const user_id = parseInt($(e.currentTarget).attr("data-user-id"), 10);
const bot = people.get_by_user_id(user_id);
if (!bot) {
return;
}
const modal = open_bot_form(bot);
modal.find('.submit_bot_change').on("click", function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
const full_name = modal.find("input[name='full_name']");
const url = "/json/bots/" + encodeURIComponent(user_id);
const data = {
full_name: full_name.val(),
};
const owner_select_value = modal.find('.bot_owner_select').val();
if (owner_select_value) {
data.bot_owner_id = people.get_by_email(owner_select_value).user_id;
}
settings_ui.do_settings_change(channel.patch, url, data, status_field);
user settings: Separate code for bot form. When editing a bot, there are only two fields that are similar to humans--full name and email--which are trivial. Before this commit we used a single codepath to build the human form and the bot form. Now we have two simple codepaths. The tricky nature of the code had already led to ugly things for the bot codepath that fortunately weren't user facing, but which were distracting: - For bots we would needlessly set things like is_admin, is_guest in the template data. - For bots we would needlessly try to update custom profile fields. The code that differs between bots and humans is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read and hard to improve: - Humans don't have bot owners. - Bots don't have custom profile fields. The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple copies of the dropdown), but we may still want to refine that (at least adding a spinner). The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields, which can bring in specialized widgets like pill fields. Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint: * human -> /json/users * bot -> /json/bots Before we had a lot of conditional logic in the template, the code to build to views, and the code to submit the data. Now everything is much flatter. The human code is still a bit messy (more work coming on that), but the bot code is fairly pristine. All three components of the bot code fit on a page, and there are no conditionals: - admin_bot_form.hbs - open_bot_form - handle_bot_form We may want to grow out the bot code a bit to allow admins to do more things, such as adding services, and this will be easier now. It would also be easier for us now to share widgets with the per-user bot settings. Note that the form for editing human data will continue to be invoked from two panels: - Users - Deactivated users There are some minor differences between users and deactivated users, but the shape of the data is the same for both, so that's still all one codepath. We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since it was never used. One nice thing about these forms was that they had very little custom CSS attached to them (at form-level specificity), and it turned out all the custom CSS was for the human-specific form.
2020-05-09 12:13:03 +02:00
overlays.close_modal('#admin-bot-form');
});
});
}
exports.on_load_success = function (realm_people_data) {
meta.loaded = true;
populate_users(realm_people_data);
};
section.active.handle_events = () => {
const tbody = $('#admin_users_table').expectOne();
const status_field = $('#user-field-status').expectOne();
handle_deactivation(tbody, status_field);
handle_reactivation(tbody, status_field);
handle_human_form(tbody, status_field);
};
section.deactivated.handle_events = () => {
const tbody = $('#admin_deactivated_users_table').expectOne();
const status_field = $("#deactivated-user-field-status").expectOne();
handle_deactivation(tbody, status_field);
handle_reactivation(tbody, status_field);
handle_human_form(tbody, status_field);
};
section.bots.handle_events = () => {
const tbody = $('#admin_bots_table').expectOne();
const status_field = $("#bot-field-status").expectOne();
handle_bot_owner_profile(tbody);
handle_bot_deactivation(tbody, status_field);
handle_reactivation(tbody, status_field);
handle_bot_form(tbody, status_field);
};
exports.set_up = function () {
start_data_load();
section.active.handle_events();
section.deactivated.handle_events();
section.bots.handle_events();
};
window.settings_users = exports;