Initializing the Zulip client opens a long-lived TCP connection due to
connection pooling in urllib3. In Github Actions, the network kills
such requests after ~270s, making the later `send_message` call fail.
Use a singular call to `zulip.Client()` early on to verify the
credentials, and do not cache the resulting client object. Instead,
re-create it during the final step when it is needed, so we do not run
afoul of bad TCP connection state.
This would ideally be fixed via connection keepalive or retry at the
level of the Zulip module.
54b6a83412 fixed the typo introduced in 49ad188449, but that does
not clean up existing installs which had the file with the wrong name
already.
Remove the file with the typo'd name, so two jobs do not race, and fix
the typo in the comment.
Django caches some information on HttpRequest objects, including the
headers dict, under the assumption that requests won’t be reused.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
The top-level `chdir` setting only does the chdir once, at initial
`uwsgi` startup time. Rolling restarts, however, however, require
that `uwsgi` pick up the _new_ value of the `current` directory, and
start new workers in that directory -- as currently implemented,
rolling restarts cannot restart into newer versions of the code, only
the same one in which they were started.
Use [configurable hooks][1] to execute the `chdir` after every fork.
This causes the following behaviour:
```
Thu May 12 18:56:55 2022 - chain reload starting...
Thu May 12 18:56:55 2022 - chain next victim is worker 1
Gracefully killing worker 1 (pid: 1757689)...
worker 1 killed successfully (pid: 1757689)
Respawned uWSGI worker 1 (new pid: 1757969)
Thu May 12 18:56:56 2022 - chain is still waiting for worker 1...
running "chdir:/home/zulip/deployments/current" (post-fork)...
Thu May 12 18:56:57 2022 - chain is still waiting for worker 1...
Thu May 12 18:56:58 2022 - chain is still waiting for worker 1...
Thu May 12 18:56:59 2022 - chain is still waiting for worker 1...
WSGI app 0 (mountpoint='') ready in 3 seconds on interpreter 0x55dfca409170 pid: 1757969 (default app)
Thu May 12 18:57:00 2022 - chain next victim is worker 2
[...]
```
..and so forth down the line of processes. Each process is correctly
started in the _current_ value of `current`, and thus picks up the
correct code.
[1]: https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Hooks.html
Previously, we were marking messages of all the streams passed
to bulk_remove_subscriptions even if user was not subscribed
to some of them and those streams would ideally not have
any unread messages. This code was added in 766511e519.
This commit changes the code to only mark messages of actually
unsubscribed streams as read.
Conceptually, we're clearly intending to check whether the user we're
mutating is the last realm owner. The preexisting code was safe
because we've already checked that the target user is an owner, and
thus if we're the last owner, we're the target user.
This commit attempts to refactor the `handle_bot_form` by adding new
field for `Role` in the `Manage bot` modal.
It uses the `/json/users/` url for passing the role of a bot and allow
changing it as in case of a normal user.
Fixes: #21105
This commit attempts to add the backend support by extending the
/json/bots/{bot_id}/ url support to accept the role field as a
parameter. This was previously already possible via
`/json/users/{user_id}`, so this change just simplifies client
implementation.
This commit adds a new "Role" column for the bot-list table in the
org-settings, and removes the user_id column from the same.
The role of a bot is fetched using the `get_user_type` function inside
bot_info().
This also adds the `sort_role` in the sort_fields which sorts the role
column in the bot-list table.
Adam Sah
Alex Vandiver
Chris Bobbe
Anders Kaseorg
Sahil Batra
Tim Abbott
somesh202
Somesh Ranjan
Christopher Chong