This makes it much more clear that this feature does JSON encoding,
which previously was only indicated in the documentation.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Fixes#2665.
Regenerated by tabbott with `lint --fix` after a rebase and change in
parameters.
Note from tabbott: In a few cases, this converts technical debt in the
form of unsorted imports into different technical debt in the form of
our largest files having very long, ugly import sequences at the
start. I expect this change will increase pressure for us to split
those files, which isn't a bad thing.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Automatically generated by the following script, based on the output
of lint with flake8-comma:
import re
import sys
last_filename = None
last_row = None
lines = []
for msg in sys.stdin:
m = re.match(
r"\x1b\[35mflake8 \|\x1b\[0m \x1b\[1;31m(.+):(\d+):(\d+): (\w+)", msg
)
if m:
filename, row_str, col_str, err = m.groups()
row, col = int(row_str), int(col_str)
if filename == last_filename:
assert last_row != row
else:
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
with open(filename) as f:
lines = f.readlines()
last_filename = filename
last_row = row
line = lines[row - 1]
if err in ["C812", "C815"]:
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 1] + "," + line[col - 1 :]
elif err in ["C819"]:
assert line[col - 2] == ","
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 2] + line[col - 1 :].lstrip(" ")
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
We do limit the length to 100 in the frontend, but no such check
exists in the backend.
Check that a new alert word has a maximum length of 100 in the
alert_words endpoint.
Previous cleanups (mostly the removals of Python __future__ imports)
were done in a way that introduced leading newlines. Delete leading
newlines from all files, except static/assets/zulip-emoji/NOTICE,
which is a verbatim copy of the Apache 2.0 license.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
POST and DELETE operations in /users/me/alert_words may leave the
user's list of alert words in an unknown state: POSTing adds words to a
list that the client may not know from the begining, and the same with
DELETE.
Replying with the current status of the alert words list is the best way
of letting the client alter the list and knowing its contents after
being updated with a single query.
This is especially useful taking into account that POSTing words that
were already present and DELETing non-existing words both produce a
successful response.
An extra test has been added to avoid leaving GET /users/me/alert_words
too untested.
Querying an endpoint with no information (thus a noop) and it producing
a successful response doesn't seem to be expected.
Given the case that the client makes such query with no content it will
probably be unintentional and the API should let them know about it.
Revert to the use of `do_add_alert_words()` in `add_alert_words()`
instead of `do_set_alert_words()` since it is used for serving a
PUT request. This change seems to be mistakenly done in commit
`d564a76f8e45b24cd2c66475ef7693582fb2f5fc'.
For a long time, rest_dispatch has had this hack where we have to
create a copy of it in each views file using it, in order to directly
access the globals list in that file. This removes that hack, instead
making rest_dispatch just use Django's import_string to access the
target method to use.
[tweaked and reorganized from acrefoot's original branch in various
ways by tabbott]
Anders Kaseorg
Anders Kaseorg
Divyanshu Agrawal
Yago González
Tim Abbott
Kiy4h
rht
Alena Volkova
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
Harshit Bansal
Vivek Anand
Raghav Jajodia
Juan Verhook
acrefoot
Ashish Kumar
Tim Abbott