This replaces the temporary (and testless) fix in
24b1439e93 with a more permanent
fix.
Instead of checking if the user is a bot just before
sending the notifications, we now just don't enqueue
notifications for bots. This is done by sending a list
of bot IDs to the event_queue code, just like other
lists which are used for creating NotificationData objects.
Credit @andersk for the test code in `test_notification_data.py`.
This fixes a bug where email notifications were sent for wildcard
mentions even if the `enable_offline_email_notifications` setting was
turned off.
This was because the `notification_data` class incorrectly considered
`wildcard_mentions_notify` as an indeoendent setting, instead of a wrapper
around `enable_offline_email_notifications` and `enable_offline_push_notifications`.
Also add a test for this case.
Previously, we checked for the `enable_offline_email_notifications` and
`enable_offline_push_notifications` settings (which determine whether the
user will receive notifications for PMs and mentions) just before sending
notifications. This has a few problem:
1. We do not have access to all the user settings in the notification
handlers (`handle_missedmessage_emails` and `handle_push_notifications`),
and therefore, we cannot correctly determine whether the notification should
be sent. Checks like the following which existed previously, will, for
example, incorrectly not send notifications even when stream email
notifications are enabled-
```
if not receives_offline_email_notifications(user_profile):
return
```
With this commit, we simply do not enqueue notifications if the "offline"
settings are disabled, which fixes that bug.
Additionally, this also fixes a bug with the "online push notifications"
feature, which was, if someone were to:
* turn off notifications for PMs and mentions (`enable_offline_push_notifications`)
* turn on stream push notifications (`enable_stream_push_notifications`)
* turn on "online push" (`enable_online_push_notifications`)
then, they would still receive notifications for PMs when online.
This isn't how the "online push enabled" feature is supposed to work;
it should only act as a wrapper around the other notification settings.
The buggy code was this in `handle_push_notifications`:
```
if not (
receives_offline_push_notifications(user_profile)
or receives_online_push_notifications(user_profile)
):
return
// send notifications
```
This commit removes that code, and extends our `notification_data.py` logic
to cover this case, along with tests.
2. The name for these settings is slightly misleading. They essentially
talk about "what to send notifications for" (PMs and mentions), and not
"when to send notifications" (offline). This commit improves this condition
by restricting the use of this term only to the database field, and using
clearer names everywhere else. This distinction will be important to have
non-confusing code when we implement multiple options for notifications
in the future as dropdown (never/when offline/when offline or online, etc).
3. We should ideally re-check all notification settings just before the
notifications are sent. This is especially important for email notifications,
which may be sent after a long time after the message was sent. We will
in the future add code to thoroughly re-check settings before sending
notifications in a clean manner, but temporarily not re-checking isn't
a terrible scenario either.
This reduces loose strings in the codebase, and allows us to not worry
about the exact naming (`stream_email_enabled` or `stream_emails_enabled`?)
and tense (`mentioned` or `mention`?).
Ideally this new class should have been in `lib/notification_data.py`,
which is our file for things like this. But, the next commit requires
using this data in `models.py`, and importing from `notification_data.py`
to `models.py` causes recursive imports.
We will use this later to display which user group was mentioned
in push and email notifications.
`mentioned_user_group_ids` is kept as a List (not Set) to ensure proper
test coverage of the function, since it depends on the order of iteration,
and we cannot change the order of iteration for a set (which we'll need
to do for proper testing).
Part of #13080.
This removes some complexity from the event_queue module.
To avoid code duplication, we reduce the `is_notifiable` methods to
internally just call the `trigger` methods and check their return value.
* Have the `get_active_presence_idle_user_ids` function look at all the
user data, not just `private_message` and `mentioned`.
* Fix a couple of incorrect `missedmessage_hook` tests, which did not
catch the earlier behaviour.
* Add some comments to the tests for this function for clarity.
* Add a helper to create `UserMessageNotificationsData` objects from the
user ID lists. This will later help us deduplicate code in the event_queue
logic.
This fixes a bug which earlier existed, that if a user turned on stream
notifications, and received a message in that stream which did not mention
them, they wouldn't be in the `presence_idle_users` list, and hence would
never get notifications for that message.
Note that, after this commit, users might still not get notifications in
the above scenarios in some cases, because the downstream logic in the
notification queue consumers sometimes erroneously skips sending
notifications for stream messages.
Since `flags` here could be iterated through multiple times
(to check for push/email notifiability), we use `Collection`.
Inspired by 871e73ab8f.
The other change here in the `event_queue` code is prep for using
the `UserMessageNotificationsData` class there.
We will later consistently use these functions to check for notifiable
messages in the message send and event_queue code.
We have these functions accept the `sender_id` so that we can avoid the
`private_message = message["type"] == "private" and user_id != sender_id`
wizardy.
We will in later commits, extend this class to contain methods
to determine if a message is notifiable or not, but for now
we only turn it into a dict and pass it on.
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas